Briefly stated, the petitioner holds a licence under the Kerala Abkari Act and Rules made thereunder for the manufacturing of IMFL. It is clear that the State also has deployed certain staff belonging to its Excise Department at the petitioner's unit with a view to safeguarding its revenue interest. In terms of Section 14 (e) of the Kerala Abkari Act, the State recovers the cost of such tax from the licensee. Though it had originally been levied at 25% of the average of the scale of pay applicable, through Exhibit P3 it was revised, holding that under Rule 146 of part I KSR 25% of the maximum of scale of pay had to be recovered.

2. When the revision of levy had been challenged, this Court through Exhibit P4 judgment held that the licensee was liable to pay leave salary and pension contribution only at 25% of the average scale of pay. This Court has also further directed the respondents to calculate the excess amounts collected and adjust it against the future liability.

3. When the petitioner sought the benefit of Exhibit P4 judgment, the fourth respondent through Exhibit P8 order has taken a stand that the judgments in Exhibits P4 and P5 apply only to those parties to the said proceedings and since the petitioner has not been a party, it cannot take advantage of it. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents, apart from perusing the record.

5. As could be seen from the record, initially the issue presently in question arose in W.P. (C) No. 23356/2005, which was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court. No appeal has been filed against the said judgment. Later, when another learned single Judge allowed W.P. (C) No. 21051/2005, through a judgment dated 11.11.2011, the State chose to lay challenge against it in an intra-court appeal. Eventually, a learned Division Bench of this Court through Exhibit P4 judgment upheld the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 23356/2005. It has inter alia observed thus:

"The learned Government Pleader frankly admits that, the State has not filed any appeal against the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 23356/2005. The facts of both cases are exactly identical. That being so, the appellant is also entitled to the reliefs granted in that judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. Exhibits P3 and P4 are quashed. It is declared that the appellant is liable to pay as cost of establishment under Rule 16 (4) only the actual amount paid by the State to the officers deputed to the appellant's establishment, by way of pay and leave salary contribution and no other amount. The appellant is not liable to pay cost of establishment at the rate of 25% on the maximum of the scale of pay applicable to the officers so deputed. The appellant is also not liable to pay the amount as contemplated in Rule 146 of Part I KSR except the actual amount paid by the State to the officers, who have been deputed to the appellant's establishment. Accordingly, there would be a direction to the respondents to recalculate the amounts due from the appellant to the respondents in accordance with these findings for the periods in question. If the appellant has paid amounts in excess of the amounts calculated as directed above for the periods in question, the same shall be suitably adjusted towards amounts payable by the appellant presently or in future. Orders in implementation of the above directions shall be passed by the competent among the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

6. The learned Government Pleader has, in my view, fairly submitted that the petitioner is similarly situated and that the benefit of Exhibit P4 judgment may have to be extended to him. The learned Government Pleader has also brought to my notice Exhibit P5, whereby the second respondent directed the third respondent, as well as all othe