JUDGMENT K. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. The 1st petitioner is a service organisation of the staff in the Excise Department of the State Government and the other petitioners are working in the Excise department. The staff and officers in the Excise Department are posted in the distilleries, breweries and ware-houses operated by the private individuals under licence issued by the Government. Though the wages of such officers are paid by the Government, the Government will get it reimbursed from the respective licencees. The officers have to work in excess of their normal duty hours. For that also, licencees would be charged for such extra work. For this purpose, amendments were brought in the Brewery Rules as well as the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules framed under the provisions of the Abkari Act 1/1077. Exts. P3 and P4 are the amendments thus brought to the Brewery Rules and to the Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules. The petitioners have approached this Court Challenging Exts. P3 and P4 as it contain a stipulation that even though the licencees or contractors are liable to pay the Government, charges for the services of the employees and officers deployed in such breweries and distilleries in excess of their normal duty hours, the 'remuneration' payable to concerned officers towards excess wages would be limited to 50% of the basic pay. The petitioners submit that such limitations contained in Exts. P3 and P4 amendments is oppressive, arbitrary and violative of their fundamental rights including that under Art.23 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners submit that the said rule operates as forced labour, and therefore, it violates their rights under Art.23 of the Constitution of India. They are, compelled to work beyond the normal duty hours and the payment made by the licencees would even cover beyond that 50% of the basic pay. Government cannot unlawfully charge to themselves for the work they have rendered in the breweries, distilleries or warehouses concerned, without paying it to the employees and officers. They are, compelled to work beyond the normal duty hours and the payment made by the licencees would even cover beyond that 50% of the basic pay. Government cannot unlawfully charge to themselves for the work they have rendered in the breweries, distilleries or warehouses concerned, without paying it to the employees and officers. The petitioners have to substantiate their contentions, relied on the rulings reported in Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1983 SC 328 , People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others AIR 1982 SC 1473 , Central Inland Water Transport Corporation v. Brojo Nath Ganguly 1986 (3) SCC 156 and Government of Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Anabeshahi Wine and Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1988 SC 771 . On an active consideration of the contentions and the issue raised, I am of the view that none of these decisions is applicable to the case on hand. The first case is relating to execution of application to the Minimum Wages Act to famine workers. The second case is arisen out of the Employment of Children's Act. The third case is with reference to the contract opposed to the public policy and the last one is in respect of the amount payable by the licensee of the distillery under the Distillery Rules is in tax or fee. These decisions thus do not cover the point canvassed. 2. The petitioners are Government employees. They are having a special status under the Constitution of India. Their service conditions are governed by the rules issued under the Kerala Public Services Act a legislation enacted in terms of Art.309 of the Constitution of India. The pay of the Government officers are not fixed in terms of the Minimum Wages Act or in tune with the fair wages as is applicable under tripartite conferences. The remuneration paid to the Government Officers are not wages but salary and allowances. It is not based on the amount of labour involved in the functioning. It is coupled with the status and functional requirement. A Government officer shall always be required to perform duty at any time depending upon circumstances. During the election period, officers may be on duty continuously for 24 hours on continuous days. It is not based on the amount of labour involved in the functioning. It is coupled with the status and functional requirement. A Government officer shall always be required to perform duty at any time depending upon circumstances. During the election period, officers may be on duty continuously for 24 hours on continuous days. Whenever there is tense situation, the officers attached to the Magistracy and the police will always be on twenty four hours duty till the situation is eased out. Even in government offices, the officers and employees may have to work beyond office hours in order to meet certain situations. At the same time, when there is no workload such officers even during office hours may have only leisurely work. Therefore, the payment is not based onthe amount of labour put in by the officers. Therefore, an officer working beyond office hours cannot claim overtime wages as is available to factory workers under the Factories Act and mine workers under the Mines Act or the plantation workers under the Plantation Labour Act. At the same time, if there is some additional labour, as an incentive to work, they must be paid in addition to their normal salary and allowances. Thus, that is to keep them encouraged and not for overtime work. That is provided for in Exts. P3 and P4. According to me that itself is on a higher side taking into account other perquisites the number of holidays, number of leave and other benefits including retiral benefits. Therefore, such stipulation limiting the wage payable for the work done in excess of the normal duty hours to 50% in Exts. P3 and P4 cannot be said to be arbitrary or unjust, or exploitation of labour as contended, offending Art.23 of the Constitution of India. 3. But, at the same time, the petitioners contended that Ext. P3 can be enforced only with effect from 25.9.90 because those amendments were published in the Gazette No. 38 though Government Order is dated 18.7.90. A subordinate legislation which affects the subjects can only be enforced unless it has retrospective effect only from the date of publication. Publication is an essential formality for subordinate legislation to be made known to the public. A subordinate legislation which affects the subjects can only be enforced unless it has retrospective effect only from the date of publication. Publication is an essential formality for subordinate legislation to be made known to the public. This contention is well founded in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court in R.K.V. Motors & Timbers (P) Ltd. v. R.T.O. 1982 KLT 166 (FB) apart from Supreme Court decisions on the issue. Accordingly, it is declared that Exts. P3 and P4 are enforcible with effect from 25.9.90. Until Exts. P3 and P4 are enforced, the petitioners' case will be governed by the rules then in force. O.P. is disposed of as above. No costs.