JUDGMENT : Facts: 1. The petitioner is a manufacturer of Indian Made Foreign Liquor. It had, posted by the Government, a contingent of officers-one Circle Inspector, one Inspector, two Preventive Officers and eight Guards-to supervise the day-to-day functioning of the petitioner-factory. Following Section 14 of the Abkari Act (‘the Act’ for brevity) read with Rule 14 of the Kerala Distillery & Warehouse Rules, 1968 (Part-I) (‘the Rules’ for brevity), the Government has deployed the supervisory staff to ensure that there is no evasion of the duty on the manufacturer’s part. 2. As per the statutory mechanism, the petitioner continued to pay to the said supervisory staff the salary and allowances. It is the specific case of the petitioner that from November 2010, the Circle Inspector, heading the supervisory staff and being the competent authority to raise the necessary bills for payment of salary and other allowances by the petitioner, did not make any demand for the overtime allowance due for the months from November, 2010 to March, 2011. It is said to be in anticipation of the pay revision, which in fact was introduced through Exhibit P1, dated 26.02.2011. 3. As can be seen from Exhibit P1, the implementation of the pay revision was at two stages: the revised scale of pay was with effect from 01.07.2009; all other service benefits were to be paid with effect from 01.02.2011. 4. Presumably, taking advantage of Exhibit P1 revised pay scales, the third respondent forwarded, as can be seen from Exhibit P2, countersigned chalans claiming overtime allowance for the supervisory staff from November 2010 to March 2011. Later, the said official has also submitted Exhibit P3 reminder to the petitioner, explicitly stating that the chalans have been submitted earlier based on the revised scales of pay. Faced with the demand from the third respondent to pay the overtime allowance at an enhanced rate, apparently, in tune with Exhibit P1 revised pay, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 representation before the second respondent, the Commissioner of Excise. 5. In response, the second respondent communicated through Exhibit P5 that in terms of Rule 128 of the Kerala Distillery & Warehouse Rules, 1968 (Part II), what has been demanded by the third respondent is the overtime ‘fee’ but not overtime allowance. And the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts thus demanded. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Submissions: (a) Petitioner’s: 6. And the petitioner is liable to pay the amounts thus demanded. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Submissions: (a) Petitioner’s: 6. In the above factual backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioner, initially, has taken me through Section 14(e) of the Act and Rule 14 of Part I Rules, as well as Rule 128 of Part II Rules. He has submitted that only regular pay has been given retrospective effect following Exhibit P1. The learned counsel has also submitted that all other service benefits, which, according to him, obviously include the overtime fees or allowance, had the benefit of revision only from 01.02.2011. 7. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has further contended that whether the expression overtime ‘fees’ or ‘allowance’ is employed in Rule 128, it has no material difference, for it cannot be treated as part of the regular pay, which alone has been given retrospective effect. 8. The learned counsel has also pointed out what is said to be an anomaly in the demand made by the third respondent. According to him, though the retrospective effect was given to the pay revision from 01.07.2009, instead of demanding overtime fees for the said period onwards, the third respondent has, however, confined his demand only for the months of November, December, 2010 and January 2011. (b) Respondents’: 9. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader, in tune with the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, has submitted that the overtime fee is entirely different from any sort of allowance regarding which the pay revision has been implemented only prospectively. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Government Pleader has further submitted that Section 14 of the Act 1 of 1077 deals with establishment and control of distilleries, breweries, and warehouses. As per Rule 14 of the Part I Rules, the Distiller shall pay the cost of establishment employed in the distillery including allowance, leave salary and pensionary contribution at such rates as may be prescribed by the Government from time to time. 10. The learned Government Pleader has further contended that the rule clearly states that the licensee shall be liable to pay the arrears of differential cost of the establishment if the rates of pay and allowances are revised by the Government retrospectively. 10. The learned Government Pleader has further contended that the rule clearly states that the licensee shall be liable to pay the arrears of differential cost of the establishment if the rates of pay and allowances are revised by the Government retrospectively. The third respondent, as per the above provision, issued chalans with demand notice to the petitioner company for the remittance of the overtime fees, which were calculated on the basis of the revised pay of the employees-Exhibit P1. 11. The learned Government Pleader has submitted that according to Rule 128, whenever work is done by an officer beyond the regular hours on a working day or in excess of the period of free service, if any, prescribed on a holiday, he may charge overtime fees for all hours so worked. 12. It is the specific contention of the learned Government Pleader that overtime fee is not an allowance but is an additional pay in the form of fee to be collected from the distiller for the additional work done by Excise Officers beyond the normal working hours. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record. Issue: 14. Whether the overtime fee shall be treated as part of the basic pay so that the benefit of Exhibit P1 pay revision can be extended retrospectively or be treated as part of the allowance so that the benefit can be extended only prospectively? Discussion: Establishment & Deployment: 15. Indeed, the facts are not in dispute. Section 14 of the Abkari Act empowers the Commissioner to establish, with the previous approval of the Government, public distilleries, breweries or wineries. He can also authorize the establishing of private distilleries, breweries, etc. Under clause (d) of Section 14, the Commissioner is competent to prescribe the mode of supervision that may be necessary for the distillery, etc., where preparations containing liquor or intoxicating drugs are manufactured. 16. The supervisory arrangement is with a view to ensuring proper collection of duties, taxes, and other dues payable under the Act as well as the proper utilization of the liquor or intoxicating drugs. 16. The supervisory arrangement is with a view to ensuring proper collection of duties, taxes, and other dues payable under the Act as well as the proper utilization of the liquor or intoxicating drugs. As a necessary corollary, clause (e) of Section 14 further empowers the Commissioner to prescribe size and nature of the establishment necessary for such supervision and the cost of the establishment, including other incidental charges to be realised from the licencees in connection with such supervision. Pay Revision: 17. Indisputably, the third respondent and the staff have been deployed by the Commissioner under Section 14(e). In fact, Rule 13 of the Rules prescribes the strength of the establishment maintained at a distillery following the statutory mandate under Section 14 of the Act. Demand: 18. As can be seen, the Government revised the pay of its employees across the board through Exhibit P1. While effecting the pay revision, the Government has made it clear that the revision shall take effect as regards the scales of pay from 01.07.2009. As regards the various allowances and other benefits, it should be from 01.02.2011. In other words, the scale of pay has been revised retrospectively and the allowances and other benefits, prospectively. 19. The third respondent, who submits chalans periodically claiming the pay and allowances from the petitioner for the staff deployed in its premises, deferred submitting the chalans initially with an expectation that the pay revision would soon be implemented. In fact, on 03.10.2011, the third respondent addressed Ext.P2 communication to the petitioner demanding overtime allowance for the months from November, 2010 to March, 2011. Indeed, the third respondent was paid the regular pay by the petitioner on time, for there was no dispute concerning the retroactive revision of the pay. Clarification: 20. Contending that the overtime allowance could not be treated as part of the regular pay, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 representation before the Commissioner of Excise, who, then, through Exhibit P5 rejected the petitioner’s interpretation of Exhibit P1. This Court is, therefore, called upon to decide whether the overtime allowance claimed by the Excise Staff posted at the petitioner’s premises represented by the third respondent can be treated as part of the regular pay or a mere allowance, so that the pay revision could be applied only retrospectively. Statutory Scheme: 21. This Court is, therefore, called upon to decide whether the overtime allowance claimed by the Excise Staff posted at the petitioner’s premises represented by the third respondent can be treated as part of the regular pay or a mere allowance, so that the pay revision could be applied only retrospectively. Statutory Scheme: 21. Since much emphasis has been laid by both the parties on Rule 128 of the Rules, it may be instructive to extract the said provision, which to the extent relevant reads as follows: “128. Memorandum of Overtime Fees.- (Form D32) Whenever work is done by an officer in excess of eight hours on a working day or in excess of period of free service if any, prescribed on a holiday he may charge overtime fees for all hours so worked in accordance with the instructions given below. Each such claim should be supported by a requisitions presented by the distiller or warehouse keeper and the officer should also certify therein that overtime was worked from hour minute to hour minute. Claims for overtime work on working days should be accompanied by a statement of work done explaining fully how overtime became necessary. The amount of overtime fees earned during the month should be drawn in the succeeding month on establishment bills (in the case of non-gazetted officers and on salary bills in the case of Gazetted officers) supported by a memorandum in Form D.32 containing a certificate signed by the Assistant Commissioner that the fees payable to the officers were for duties falling within the scope of the officer’s ordinary duties, but performed on holidays or out of office hours, for the convenience of the distillers or warehouse keepers and that the prescribed fees have been realised and credited into the treasury.” 22. Succinctly stated, the above Rule mandates that whenever an officer works more than 8 hours on a working day or works on a holiday, he may charge overtime fee for all the hours so worked. In fact, the rest of the provision delineates the manner and method of calculating and paying the overtime fees. Analyses: 23. As the record reveals, in Exhibit P2, the third respondent employed the expression ‘overtime allowance’; in Exhibit P3 reminder as well, he employed the same expression. In fact, the rest of the provision delineates the manner and method of calculating and paying the overtime fees. Analyses: 23. As the record reveals, in Exhibit P2, the third respondent employed the expression ‘overtime allowance’; in Exhibit P3 reminder as well, he employed the same expression. In Exhibit P5, the Commissioner of Excise, while rejecting the contentions of the petitioner that what has been claimed by the third respondent cannot be treated as part of the regular pay, has averred that it is overtime fee, but not overtime allowance. Thus, the issue further zeros in on a singular aspect: whether there is any semantic difference between the expressions ‘fee’ and ‘allowance’. (a) Semantic Significance: 24. Incidentally, it may have to be observed that neither the Act nor the Rules have defined the term ‘fee,’ if it were to be treated as a word of art. In fiscal legislations, the expression ‘fee’ has a definite connotation; the Courts have time and again interpreted the said expression. 25. Words are the seeds-initially sprouting and taking root in their native soils. The winds of time carry some of them afar to various civilizational shores: thus they truly, literally get disseminated. They draw from the new soils, grow in myriad shapes and bear different fruits: meanings. For the grass and bamboo belong to the genus. That is how the journey from genus to species is. 26. Word Histories and Mysteries (American Heritage Dictionaries, Houghton Mifflin Company, USA) traces the origin of the term ‘fee’: “It is possible to see the idea of money taking hold of the human mind by studying a few words that express the notion of wealth or goods. The word fee now denotes money paid or received for a service rendered. Fee comes from Old English feoh, which has three meanings, all equally ancient: “cattle, livestock”; “goods, possessions, movable property”; “money.” The Germanic form behind the Old English is fehu... from Indo-European peku-, “cattle.” Fehu is therefore a cognate of Latin pecu, “cattle,” also a direct descendant of Indo-European peku-. Latin pecu has several derivatives that ultimately were borrowed into English. One was pecunia, “money,” the source of the word pecuniary. Another was peculiaris, “pertaining to one’s pecu¯ lium, or property,” the source of the word peculiar. Finally, the word peculator comes from yet a third derivative, pecula tor, “embezzler of public money, peculator.” 27. Latin pecu has several derivatives that ultimately were borrowed into English. One was pecunia, “money,” the source of the word pecuniary. Another was peculiaris, “pertaining to one’s pecu¯ lium, or property,” the source of the word peculiar. Finally, the word peculator comes from yet a third derivative, pecula tor, “embezzler of public money, peculator.” 27. We may as well examine the semantic nuances of ‘fee,’ which is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.) as a charge for labour or services, especially professional services. 28. P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s The Major Law Lexicon (4th Ed. (2010)) defines the ‘Fee’ as a charge or emolument, or compensation for particular acts or services; reward or compensation for services rendered or to be rendered, a payment in money for official or professional services, whether the amount be optional or fixed by custom; compensation paid to professional men, by custom; compensation paid to professional men, as an attorney or physician; the reward or compensation allowed by law to an officer for specific services performed by him in the discharge of his official duties; frequently for services rendered in the progress of a cause, to be paid by the parties obtaining the benefit of the acts, or receiving the services at whose instances they were performed. Sometimes the term may mean charges and is often used in interchangeably with the term ‘costs.’ 29. A fee is levied essentially for services rendered and as such there is an element of quid pro quo between the person who pays the fee and the public authority which imposes it. (vide Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab. ( AIR 1980 SC 1008 , as quoted in Aiyar’s Law Lexicon)) 30. In Southern Pharmaceuticals & Chemicals v. State of Kerala ( (1981) 4 SCC 391 @ 409), the Apex Court, while drawing a distinction between ‘fee’ and ‘tax’ has held that “Fees” are the amounts paid for a privilege, and are not an obligation, but the payment is voluntary. Fees are distinguished from taxes in that the chief purpose of a tax is to raise funds for the support of the Government or for a public purpose, while a fee may be charged for the privilege or benefit conferred, or service rendered or to meet the expenses connected therewith. Thus, fee is nothing but payment for some special privilege granted on service rendered. 31. Thus, fee is nothing but payment for some special privilege granted on service rendered. 31. Pay, on the other hand, has an equally interesting origins. The same Word Histories and Mysteries (American Heritage Dictionaries, Houghton Mifflin Company, USA) reveals the origins of the expression ‘pay’: Given the unpeaceful feelings one often has in paying bills or income taxes, it is difficult to believe that the word pay ultimately derives from the Latin word pax, “peace.” However, it is not the peace of the one who pays that is involved in this development of meaning. From pax, meaning “peace” and also “a settlement of hostilities,” was derived the word pacare, “to impose a settlement on peoples or territories.” In Late Latin pacare was extended in sense to mean “to appease.” The Old French word paiier that developed from Latin pacare came to have the specific application “to pacify or satisfy a creditor,” a sense that came into Middle English along with the word paien (first recorded around the beginning of the thirteenth century), the ancestor of our word pay. 32. As per Section 69 (2B) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (As quoted in Aiyar’s Law Lexicon), ‘PAY’ includes basic wages with dearness allowance, retaining allowance (if any), and food concession admissible thereon, to which the employee is entitled at the time when the withdrawal is granted. Section 2 (xiii) of Employer’s Pension Scheme, 1995, defines the ‘Pay’ to be basic wages, with dearness allowance, retaining allowance and cash value of food concessions admissible, if any (Ibid). (b) Pay & Overtime: 33. In service jurisprudence, ‘pay’ and ‘fee’ have definite, different connotations. Pay has, to me, an element of coercion or compulsion on either end; there is not much element of voluntariness. Given the contractual obligations, an employee is required to work for fixed hours in a day and fixed days in a year. Once he meets the said criterion, he is entitled to a fixed pay notwithstanding his absence on other days. It is more contractual and less quid pro quo in nature. An employee cannot say that he will work on the days he pleases; equally, an employer cannot insist that he will pay for only those days the employee has actually worked. 34. It is more contractual and less quid pro quo in nature. An employee cannot say that he will work on the days he pleases; equally, an employer cannot insist that he will pay for only those days the employee has actually worked. 34. In contrast, the overtime fee or allowance is not a compulsion; it is rather a voluntary offer on the part of the employee and acceptance on the part of the employer. 35. ‘Overtime’ is defined to be (i) work of regular job done in addition to regular work hours...(iii) time in excess of a set period.(v) beyond the regular or stipulated time (vi) to exceed the required time for (say a photographic exposure). (Collins English Dictionary, as quoted in Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court ( (1985) 3 SCC 103 ). Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (Multivolume OED) defines ‘Overtime’ as time during which one works over and above the regular hours; extra time. Also, payment for work performed in excess of normal hours. The expression, according to OED, was first employed in 1536 in relation to the work turned out by the carpenters. (c) In the Context: 36. Even if the reasoning applied by the Commissioner of Excise in Ext.P5 were to be accepted, the expressions ‘fee’ and ‘allowances’ have semantic difference. Still the question remains whether the so-called fee could be treated as part of scale of pay. In Exhibit P1, clause 42 deals with the date of effect and it reads as follows: “42. The date of effect of the revised scales of pay will be 01.07.2009. The date of effect of improved ratio based promotions/percentage based higher grades, revised time bound higher grade scheme, various allowances and other benefits will be 01.02.2011.” 37. Evidently, the scale of pay alone was given retroactive effect. The rest of the service benefits, including the improved ratio based promotions, percentage based higher grades, and revised time bound higher grade schemes were given prospective effect. In that context, in a compendious manner, the Government has specified that various allowances and other benefits should have only prospective benefit. In my considered view, overtime fee, as has been prescribed in Rule 128 of the Rules, is a benefit which cannot be equated with the regular pay. It can be either an allowance as has been prescribed in Exhibits P3 and P4, or a benefit, but not pay per se. 38. In my considered view, overtime fee, as has been prescribed in Rule 128 of the Rules, is a benefit which cannot be equated with the regular pay. It can be either an allowance as has been prescribed in Exhibits P3 and P4, or a benefit, but not pay per se. 38. A closer scrutiny of clause 42 of Exhibit P1 further makes it clear that any advantage an employee gets by way of improved ratio based promotion or percentage based higher grade or even revised time bound higher grade scheme has also been treated distinctly and differently. Without much cavil, I may venture to observe that in all those instances basically the employee gets his scale of pay improved. Nevertheless, presumably taking financial implications, the Government has felt it desirable to give retrospective effect only to the pay but not other service benefits, ‘pay’ having been restrictively employed. (d) Alternative View: 39. It is further pertinent to observe that if at all the Excise Staff posted at the petitioner’s premises were entitled to the revised pay scale concerning the overtime fees, the third respondent could have claimed the benefit from 01.07.2009. For the reasons not forthcoming, Exhibit P2 demand is only from November, 2010. More than a year has been left out. To be sure about the issue, this Court asked the learned Government Pleader to get instructions whether the third respondent had claimed the overtime allowance for the period between July, 2009 and November, 2010. He has submitted on instructions in the negative. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has submitted that the Excise Staff, in fact, claimed overtime allowance on a monthly basis even up to November, 2010. 40. I make it clear that the mere description of the benefit due to the Excise Staff in Exhibits P2 and P3 as allowance could not bar the beneficiaries from claiming the benefit retrospectively if at all they were entitled to it. Further, neither could their claiming the benefit for a limited period be prejudicial to their interests. Conclusion: 41. The only issue that has weighed with the Court is whether the expression ‘overtime fee’ is different and distinct from the expression ‘overtime allowance’ and whether Exhibit P1 pay revision has mandated that overtime fee should be treated as part of the regular pay so as to be given the retroactive benefit. 42. Conclusion: 41. The only issue that has weighed with the Court is whether the expression ‘overtime fee’ is different and distinct from the expression ‘overtime allowance’ and whether Exhibit P1 pay revision has mandated that overtime fee should be treated as part of the regular pay so as to be given the retroactive benefit. 42. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the overtime fee is an allowance, if not a benefit, and it is covered by the second limb of clause 42 of Exhibit P1 so that the benefit of pay revision will apply only prospectively. With the above observations, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.