JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 23.9.2003 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in Writ Petition No.3050 of 2003 declining to entertain the writ petitions filed before it.

3. Appellant has been granted licence for manufacturing spirit and potable liquor in terms of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and the Rules framed thereunder. Respondents, indisputably, posted some of its employees for supervision of the manufacure or sale of country liquor from the said factory.

4. A demand was raised for a sum of Rs.7,43,686/-. Admittedly, such supervision charges have been paid in advance. The State, however, revised the salary of its employees with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 by Notification dated 10.12.1998 for the period 1.1.1996 to 31.12.1998. A communication dated 17.6.2000 was issued calling upon the appellant to pay the arrears of supervision charges for the period 1.4.1996 to 31.12.2000 amounting to Rs.7,43,666/-

5. Questioning the legality and/or validity of the said claim, a writ petition (No.4092 of 2000) was filed before the Bombay High Court by the appellant praying for, inter alia, the following reliefs :

"(B) Hold and declare that the demand notice dated 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and the circular dated 17.6.1999, 30.7.1999 issued by the Respondents 2, and the demand

notice issued by the Respondent No.3 dated 17.6.2000 towards the difference in the salary and wages, w.e.f. 1.1.1996 i.e., retrospective effect towards the supervision charges is therefore illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India; and therefore strike down the same.

(C) Issue a Writ prohibition or any other appropriate Writ, order or directions in the nature of Writ of Prohibition prohibiting the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, their officers and subordinates from demanding and/or recovering any amount towards the salary and wages with retrospective effect from 1.1.1996 as per the circular dated 30.7.1999 as per the demand notices dated 17.6.2000 and August 2000 and for that purpose issue necessary orders."

6. Similar other writ applications before the said court were also filed. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, by a judgment and order dated 7.12.2000 passed in Writ Petition No.3501 of 2000 opined as under :

"We are also amazed to note that in spite of the fact that the Government of Maharashtra by notification dated 10.12.1998 decided to implement the Fifth Pay Commission's recommendations, the respondents did not diligently and failed to claim the supervision charges at the revised rates at least from 1.1.1999. For the first time, such a demand has been raised on 30.5.2000."

7. The demand was held to be illegal. Following the said decision, the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed, holding :

"In view of our detailed judgment passed today on Writ Petition No.3501/2000, we allow the petition. Karkhana is liable to pay the supervision charges at the revised rates from 1.7.2000 as the first demand notice for arrears for the period from 1.1.1996 onwards was issued on 17.6.2000. Rule made absolute accordingly."

Concededly, the said orders were not appealed against. They attained finality.

8. One matter involving similar question, however, was brought to this Court. The decision of this Court is since reported in Government of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Deokar's Distillery [(2003) 5 SCC 669]. The majority opinion rendered in the said decision, inter alia, reads as under :

"This apart, the High Court was also not right in rejecting the writ petition of the respondents at the threshold. The High Court has failed to notice another important factor that the statutory provision under Article 309, namely, the Notification dated 10.12.1998 and the consequential administrative instructions/orders issued for carrying out the executive function under Section 58A of the Prohibition Act and Article 162 namely, the circular lett