JUDGMENT : 1. The claim of the petitioner, who asserts to have been validly appointed as an employee of a Society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, for pension after her superannuation from such employment under the applicable Pension Scheme has met with resistance from the Board, invested with the power to govern the Scheme, citing that her initial appointment, made more than two decades ago, is irregular. The petitioner answers this by contending that issues relating to her appointment are not to be over-viewed by the Pension Board but only by the Statutory Authorities under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and that as long as such Authorities have found no infirmity in her appointment or service, the Board would obtain no jurisdiction to deny her pension for the reason now imputed by them against her. 2. This quiet essential disaccord between the petitioner and the Pension Board is the focal issue in this writ petition. 3. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as a part-time Sweeper on 2.9.1995 by the Managing Committee of the second respondent Manjoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. She submits that subsequent to her appointment, two other Part-time Sweepers were also appointed in the year 2002 and 2009 in two other branches of the bank. 4. According to the petitioner, even though she was appointed in 1995 as a Part-time Sweeper, no salary was prescribed for her post as the extant Rules and that no salary was therefore fixed by the Managing Committee. She says that she was paid salary that was applicable to part-time Sweepers as fixed by the Government in its services as per a Government Order dated 1.4.2004, a copy of which has been produced and marked as Ext.P1. The petitioner asserts that she was thus being paid salary in terms of the said Government Order, as also all other benefits like Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowance, which according to her, going by Rule 189 (3) of the Kerala Service Co-operative Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for short), is the same as is applicable to the State Government employees. Her grievance is that, when she retired after superannuation, even though the Managing Committee of the Society had forwarded the pension dockets to the first respondent Kerala State Co-operative Employees’ Pension Board (‘Pension Board for brevity), under the mandate of the Cooperative Societies Employees Self Financing Pension Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘scheme’ for short), the same was not accepted by the Board and the contribution made by the Society on her behalf, for being admitted to the said scheme, was returned by the Board stating that her initial appointment was irregular and not validly sanctioned. The said order has been produced by the petitioner and marked as Ext.P6 in the writ petition. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning Ext.P6 as being illegal and untenable. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.N.Mohanan and the Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent Pension Board, Sri.M.Sasindran. 6. The pleadings in the writ petition, which are validated by the second respondent Society, would show that that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper on 2.9.1995. The Pension Board says that this appointment was irregular, because, according to them, the staff pattern applicable to the Society at that time did not accommodate a post of the Part-time Sweeper and that such a post was included only subsequently as per Ext.P3 Government Order dated 23.10.2014. The first respondent Board also has a case that the petitioner was over aged at the time of her initial appointment was illegal on that count also. 7. Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner refutes the above submissions vehemently and predicates that the appointment of Part-time Sweepers are governed by Rule 182(2) of the Rules. He further contends that the appointment of a Part-time Sweeper, being unexpendably necessary and requisite for the proper functioning of the bank, the Managing Committee had the authority and competence to appoint such employees in the Society even in the absence of a sanctioned staff pattern at that time. He refers specifically to Rule 182 (2) of Rules, wherein the competence of the Managing Committee to appoint employees in a Co-operative Society is specifically prescribed. He refers specifically to Rule 182 (2) of Rules, wherein the competence of the Managing Committee to appoint employees in a Co-operative Society is specifically prescribed. Sri.P.N.Mohanan submits with reference to Ext.P8, which is the circular dated 7.2.2011 as per which the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has stipulated the method and terms of appointment of lower scale employees of the Societies, that this would not apply to the case of the petitioner, since she was appointed much before this circular was issued. He also says that Ext.P3 Government Order would also not be applicable in the case of the petitioner, since that was issued only on 23.10.2014 whereas the appointment of the petitioner was 20 years prior to this. Mr. Mohanan contends that it is, therefore, superfluous for the Pension Board to maintain that her appointment could have been only as per Ext.P3. The submission of Sri.M.Sasindran on this issue is that since the Society did not have the competence to appoint anybody in the post of Part-time Sweeper until Ext.P3 had been issued, the initial appointment of the petitioner itself was untenable. 8. I have considered the rival submissions of the counsel on either side. 9. It is a fact that the petitioner was appointed as a Part-time Sweeper in the service of the Society with effect from 2.9.1995. It is true that at that time there was no specific staff pattern applicable to the Society specifically enabling such an appointment. However, it is improbable to contend that the Society could not have engaged or appointed a part-time Sweeper, since the cleanness and orderliness of the branches and head office would have been severely impeded without such services. The appointment of the petitioner and such other persons in posts like part-time Sweepers were necessitated by the Bank and they have therefore, invoked their powers under Rule 182(2) of the Rules for making such appointment. No objections have been raised by any of the statutory authorities under the Act or Rules against such appointment and the petitioner was allowed to continue in service continuously, until her superannuation on 30.9.2015. 10. No objections have been raised by any of the statutory authorities under the Act or Rules against such appointment and the petitioner was allowed to continue in service continuously, until her superannuation on 30.9.2015. 10. In such view of the matter, the appointment of the petitioner cannot be found to be untenable or illegal as long as no such objection has been raised by any of the statutory authorities vested with the power under the Act and Rules, to make an examination of such appointment or to declare that such appointment is not proper. 11. The first respondent Pension Board, as I have recorded above, takes a specific stand that the petitioner’s appointment is irregular. For this purpose, they are only referring to Ext.P3, relying on which they contend that the appointment of a Part-time Sweeper could have been made by the bank only after Ext.P3 staff pattern had been approved. This submission in my view is gelded, because, to say that the Society along with its branches or its head offices should remain without Sweepers and other cleaning personnel until the year 2014 would be completely illogical and irrational. The fact remains that the Society had appointed the petitioner as early as in the year 1995 as a Part-time Sweeper and that such appointment has not been disturbed by any of the statutory authorities until her superannuation. The Pension Board therefore, cannot now take a stand that the contribution made on behalf of the petitioner by the Society cannot be accepted, for the purpose of sanction of pension to her because her appointment is irregular. Once the Society had made the contribution, as per the terms of the Scheme, in relation to the petitioner and until such time as her appointment had not been, in any manner set aside or disturbed by the competent statutory authorities under the Act and Rules, I am sure that the Pension Board would not obtain the jurisdiction for holding that the appointment of the petitioner itself is wrong. 12. 12. The learned Standing Counsel of the Pension Board, of course, refers to Clause 2(h) of the Scheme, to contend that an employee under it means “a person appointed in the service of any of the Banks registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 against a sanctioned post or against a post approved by the competent authority and working on a full-time or regular paid basis including any one who is a part-time contingent employee or a collection agent or a security staff and such other person appointed in any post approved by the competent authority”. It is indubitable that the definition of the employee as per the Scheme would only cover a person, who is validly appointed. The question in this case is, whether the petitioner was so appointed or otherwise. It is undoubted that the staff pattern with relation to Societies came into effect only from the date of Ext.P3, namely, 23.10.2014. The issue therefore, is whether the Society could have appointed any body prior to that date invoking Rule 182 (2) of the Rules. The power to appoint employees under the Society is vested with the Managing Committee of the Society under the Rules. The Managing Committee of the Society had invoked Rule 182 (2) in appointing the petitioner as early as in 1995. More pertinently, the pension scheme came into effect only from the year 1998. The definition of an employee contained in the said Scheme was only with effect from 1.4.1998, much the after the petitioner was appointed in the year 1995. Therefore, even assuming that the petitioner’s appointment fell foul of the provisions of Section 2 (f) of the Scheme it would not matter in the case of the petitioner, since her appointment was much prior to that date also. 13. In such circumstances, taking into account the fact that the petitioner’s appointment as a Part-time Sweeper has never been interfered with or set aside by any of the competent authorities under the Act, I deem it necessary that the petitioner be allowed the benefit of the scheme on the basis of the pension docket and the contribution made on her behalf by the Society. I do not see, how the Pension Board would be prejudiced by this, since they are only acting under the mandate of the Scheme and only after obtaining contribution on behalf of an employee from the respective Society. I do not see, how the Pension Board would be prejudiced by this, since they are only acting under the mandate of the Scheme and only after obtaining contribution on behalf of an employee from the respective Society. I therefore, fail to understand why the Pension Board should be so adamant that the petitioner should not be admitted to the benefit of the Scheme on the ground that she was appointed irregularly. In any view in the matter, I have found that her appointment cannot be found irregular and therefore, all these submissions made on behalf of the first respondent Pension Board deserve no more than to be repelled. I do so. 14. In such circumstances, I allow this writ petition and quash Ext.P6 order and direct the first respondent Pension Board to enroll the petitioner in the pension scheme and to pay pension to her after accepting the contribution made on her behalf by the second respondent Society, with effect from the date of her superannuation. If the arrears of the pension as of today is paid to her within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, such payment will carry no interest at all. If there is any failure to make payment in terms of this judgment, the entire arrears of pension with effect from 1.10.2015 will carry interest at the rate of 6% from the respective date, on which it became due, until it is actually paid. The writ petition is thus ordered.