JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06.11.2000 under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Attender in the 3rd respondent society was declined approval being violative of rule 185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 1969, and affirmed by the 1st respondent as per Ext.P8 order, in appeal. Facts encapsulated for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner entered service under the 3rd respondent Co-operative Bank as Part-time sweeper on 02.05.1995, and promoted to the post of Attender by the Bank with effect from 13.12.1999. On 09.09.1997, petitioner was made permanent in the post of sweeper in the pay scale of Rs.370 + DA with effect from 01.07.1997. On 19.12.1999, petitioner was appointed by promotion to the post of Attender subject to approval of the 2nd respondent. On 06.11.2000, 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 impugned order directing to cancel petitioner's promotion and to recover the salary already received by her in the post of Attender. Being aggrieved, on 22.11.2000, petitioner filed O.P. No. 32763 of 2000 before this Court challenging Ext.P3 order, and this Court stayed the reversion of the petitioner. However, on 25.01.2006, the said O.P. was disposed of, directing the petitioner to pursue appeal remedy before the 1st respondent. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 appeal before the 1st respondent on 15.03.2006. However, as per Ext.P8 order dated 04.05.2007, appeal was dismissed. 3. According to the petitioner, she is innocent in the subject matter and the recovery should not have been ordered against the salary paid to the petitioner in the post of Attender. It is an admitted fact that there was no feeder category rules for effecting the promotion at that point of time and the qualification was not prescribed at all. Petitioner has completed only 7th Standard, and the qualification later prescribed for promotion to the post of Attender is pass in 7th Standard. It is an admitted fact that there was no feeder category rules for effecting the promotion at that point of time and the qualification was not prescribed at all. Petitioner has completed only 7th Standard, and the qualification later prescribed for promotion to the post of Attender is pass in 7th Standard. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Bank had promoted the petitioner to a vacancy arose, and the petitioner has executed the obligations cast upon her in the post of Attender, and since the work is carried out in the promoted post, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not discharged her duties and therefore, the recovery sought to be effected against the salary for the period the petitioner worked as an Attender cannot be recovered. 4. First respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that since the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Attender is contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, Circulars and orders issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies from time to time, the 2nd respondent issued instructions to the Bank vide Ext.P3 to cancel the irregular appointment and recover the amount paid to the petitioner. 5. It is also stated that, as per the classification of the Primary Credit Societies, as given in Appendix III to Rule 182 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the post of Part Time Sweepers does not form part of the Regular establishment. Petitioner was appointed to the post of Part-time sweeper to perform contingent works only. As per resolution No. XII dated 09.09.1997 of the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent Bank, the pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.370 + other allowance as applicable to Part Time Contingent Employees in Government Services, which is not applicable to the 3rd respondent Bank. Rule 185(1) of the Rules made under Sec.80 of the Act provides for the appointment by promotion from feeder post, as per the feeder category rules approved by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The Bank had not made any Feeder Category Rules enabling promotion from the post of Part Time Sweeper to the post of Attender. Other contentions are also raised justifying Ext.P3 order and affirmed by Ext.P8 order passed by the 1st respondent/State Government. 6. The Bank had not made any Feeder Category Rules enabling promotion from the post of Part Time Sweeper to the post of Attender. Other contentions are also raised justifying Ext.P3 order and affirmed by Ext.P8 order passed by the 1st respondent/State Government. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 7. The sole question to be decided is whether any interference is warranted to Exts.P3 and P8 orders, directing reversion of the petitioner and ordering recovery? So far as the promotion part is concerned, it is an admitted fact that there was no feeder category rules for the 3rd respondent Bank, enabling the petitioner to secure promotion as an Attender. The factual and legal aspects were agitated before the statutory authorities and after appreciating and evaluating the law and all attendant circumstances, the statutory authorities have clearly and categorically entered into a finding that the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Attender was illegal. In this writ petition also, petitioner could not establish before this Court the promotion granted by the 3rd respondent Bank to the petitioner was in accordance with law and under any justifiable circumstances. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the reversion directed by the 2nd respondent. 8. However, alternatively, petitioner has a contention that the recovery of salary ordered in the post of Attender cannot be sustained, since the petitioner was carrying on her duties diligently, attentively and with promptitude and therefore, petitioner has actually worked in the post of Attender discharging the duties thereunder for which she is entitled to be paid salary. True, since there was no rule made by the 3rd respondent Bank in order to effect promotion after securing approval from the statutory authority, it cannot be completely said that petitioner is absolutely innocent in the matter, however, the post which the petitioner held is of an inferior nature. 9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in 'State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)' [2015 (1) KLT 429 (SC)], therein the apex court has considered a case of similar nature and has classified certain circumstances deprecating recovery of payments mistakenly made. 9. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the judgment of the apex court in 'State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)' [2015 (1) KLT 429 (SC)], therein the apex court has considered a case of similar nature and has classified certain circumstances deprecating recovery of payments mistakenly made. They are as follows: “(i) Recovery from employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service (or Group 'C' and Group 'D' service). (ii) Recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year, of the order of recovery. (iii) Recovery from employees, when the excess payment has been made for a period in excess of five years, before the order of recovery is issued. (iv) Recovery in cases where an employee has wrongfully been required to discharge duties of a higher post, and has been paid accordingly, even though he should have rightfully been required to work against an inferior post. (v) In any other case, where the Court arrives at the conclusion, that recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.” 10. In my considered opinion, Clauses (i) and (iv) recited above clearly apply in the case of the petitioner. So also the petitioner was directed by the 3rd respondent Bank to discharge the duties in a higher post and was paid accordingly. That apart, facts make it clear, petitioner was appointed as a Sweeper and she was promoted as an Attender, which are inferior posts as is pointed out by the apex court in the afore-quoted judgment. Moreover, I am of the considered opinion that the 2nd respondent is not having a case that the petitioner has not discharged her duties faithfully, promptly and in accordance with law in the post of Attender. That apart petitioner remained in the promoted post hardly for a short period of one year, and the amount of salary received by her is also very meager, and therefore, the recovery sought for is inequitable.. I also bear in mind the proposition of law laid by the apex court in this regard in the judgments in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar [ (2009) 3 SCC 475 ] and Col. B.J, Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. I also bear in mind the proposition of law laid by the apex court in this regard in the judgments in Syed Abdul Qadir v. State of Bihar [ (2009) 3 SCC 475 ] and Col. B.J, Akkara (Retd.) v. Govt. of India [ (2006) 11 SCC 709 ]. 11. Taking into account all these aspects and reckoning the legal circumstances discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that, the principles of equity, justice, good conscience and fairness shall prevail upon all other considerations and therefore the discretion conferred on me under Article 226 of the Constitution of India tilts in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed accordingly, to the extent specified above, and the recovery of excess payments ordered in the impugned order will stand quashed, and in all other respects Ext.P8 order will stand affirmed.