JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. It appears from the Registry's note that notice has been properly served on the respondents No.2 and 3. The notice issued in respect of respondent No.1 has returned un-served as the respondent No.1 has refused to accept the notice. The service is to be deemed to have been completed. Here is a made up case that the petitioner was serving as the sub-staff in the Extension Counter of United Bank of India, Viveknagar, near Ramkrishna Mission, Amtali, Agartala since 14.05.1994. 3. The petitioner has claimed that she has been discharging her duties sincerely and honestly and to the full satisfaction of the authorities. At the same time, the petitioner has admitted that she was a part-time worker, paid daily basis, as it would be apparent from her own representation dated 16.08.2001, that: “from previous 7 years I was engaged as part time Sweeper worker at Ramakrishna Mission Extension Counter of your Bank Branch since last 7 years I am getting @Rs.8/- (eight) per day as wages and previously I prayed to enhance my wages, but till day no enhanced of my wages was made(sic).” 4. From the representation of the petitioner as filed on 01.06.2015, it appears further that the petitioner in terms of the circular of the bank dated 29.10.2003 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) urged for her recruitment as the sub-staff but she was not so recruited. It appears from the said representation dated 01.06.2015, due to illness of her husband she did not take any steps for regularization of her service. However, on 16.08.2001, she applied for enhancement of her salary as part-time worker. Even, such prayer was not acceded to the bank. 5. According to the petitioner, the said Extension Counter has been closed on 25.11.2003 and she was not allowed to continue in her engagement. It is an admitted position that except filing some representation on various grievances the petitioner did not take any action available to her and now by filing the writ petition the petitioner has urged this court to reinstate the petitioner in the service. 6. Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that despite having received the notice from this court, the respondents did not turn up for opposing the prayer and hence her prayer be allowed by reinstating the petitioner. 6. Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that despite having received the notice from this court, the respondents did not turn up for opposing the prayer and hence her prayer be allowed by reinstating the petitioner. This court is unable to accept such contention inasmuch as the petitioner was not a regular employee of the bank and as the temporary sub-staff for the period from 26.12.1997 to 27.11.2000 she was getting Rs.8/-as the wage as the Part-time Sweeper of the bank. It has been admitted by the petitioner herself that the petitioner was engaged as the Part-time worker and the said Extension Counter had been closed down on 25.11.2003 [para-3 of the writ petition]. As such, the petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case warranting this court interfere under the jurisdiction as conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition does not even call for inquiry as the petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to seek reinstatement. Thus, the writ petition is rejected. However, the petitioner may file representation to the competent authority for engaging her on compassionate ground. It is expected that such representation would be disposed on considering the pitiable perspective. There shall be no order as to costs.