Excise Officers Deputed To Inspect Private Distilleries Not Doing 'Additional' Duty, Must Be Given Full Pay By Distilleries: Kerala High Court

The case only concerned those Inspectors deputed to supervise the distilleries who were given the additional charge of the Excise Inspector of the respective Excise Range. The Single Judge had earlier held that in such cases, the distilleries need to pay only the additional charge and not the full pay and allowance. This judgment was overruled by the Division Bench.

For context, Section 53(b) of Part I of Kerala Service Rules lays down the additional charge to be paid when an officer is given an additional post. The private distilleries claimed that they are liable to pay only the additional charge. As per the Abkari Act and Kerala Distillery and Warehouse Rules, private distilleries are required to pay the cost of establishment necessary for the supervision as prescribed by the Government. The cost of establishment is defined as the average cost of pay, leave salary and pension contribution.

The Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. noted that as per Form IVA of the Rules, the licensee of a distillery should pay to the Government Treasury the actual cost of the staff appointed for the purpose of excise, supervision which includes pay, dearness allowance, uniform allowance and other compensatory allowances calculated at such rates as may be prescribed by the Commission from time to time.

The Court held that as per the provisions, the cost of establishment is decided by the Government and that is one of the conditions in the license. The Court also observed that there are no permanent cadre posts for the supervision of the function of the distilleries and the officers are deployed by the Government. The Court also took into account the submission of the Government that the officers have to be present in the distillery from morning to evening to supervise the manufacturing and other activities of liquor in the establishments. The Court said that the officers cannot be said to be doing additional duty so as to say that they are only entitled to charge allowance.

Counsel for the Appellants: Adv. Vinitha B. (GP)

Counsel for the Respondents: Advocates Raju K. Mathews, Tom Thomas (Kakkuzhiyil), K. R. Paul

Case No: WA 808 of 2024 & Connected cases

Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v T. R. Vijayakumar & Connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 282