Order : 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint her on regular basis as ‘Safai Karamchari’ with all consequential benefits. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of the writ petition are as follows:- 2.1. The petitioner was initially employed as a Safai Karamchari at the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Sector 11, Udaipur, since 2002. She was later transferred to the RNT Medical College Branch, Udaipur, on 01.09.2010, on a temporary basis, receiving a fixed monthly remuneration of Rs. 1440. Since then, she has been continuously working without any complaints. 2.2. During the Employees Coordination Committee meeting on 27.07.2011, the petitioner’s name was recommended for appointment on 1/3rd salary, as per Circular No. Karmik/25/2010-11 dated 25.05.2010, which entitles employees appointed on a fixed salary after 01.05.2010 to 1/3rd salary. The matter was submitted for approval and the petitioner’s pay was to be fixed as a special case from 01.02.2012. 2.3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 03.06.2013 to the Assistant Manager General-II, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Regional Office, Udaipur, explaining her continuous work as a Safai Karamchari since 2002 and requesting her appointment on 1/3rd salary, as per the 9th bilateral agreement between the Indian Bank Union and Employees' Union. However, she received no response. The Branch Manager, S.B.B.J. RNT Medical College Branch, Udaipur, recognizing the petitioner’s satisfactory service, recommended granting her 1/3rd salary and the re-fixation of her pay through communications dated 03.06.2013 and 12.07.2013 to the Assistant Manager General-II, Regional Office, Udaipur. 2.4. As the petitioner received no response, she submitted another representation on 08.11.2014 to the Deputy Manager General, S.B.B.J., Divisional Office, Udaipur, reiterating her request for 1/3rd salary. However, the petitioner was shocked to receive an order dated 09.01.2015, informing her that her pay was not fixed on 1/3rd salary. Additionally, she was refused permission to mark her attendance and was ultimately removed from the position based on verbal orders. As a result, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. Additionally, she was refused permission to mark her attendance and was ultimately removed from the position based on verbal orders. As a result, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. First and foremost, reference may be had to the preliminary objections taken in the reply filed by the bank which reads as under:- 4.1 According to the circular dated 17.07.2010, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefits claimed because she was employed temporarily starting 04.09.2010. The circular stipulates that employees recruited on or after 01.05.2010 under part-time scale are eligible for a minimum of 1/3rd wages. However, the petitioner never participated in the recruitment process, nor was she eligible for 1/3rd wages as per the settlement rules. Additionally, the petitioner's case was referred to the head office for guidance, but it was correctly rejected via a letter dated 23.01.2012, as it did not meet the requirements of the circular dated 25.05.2010. 4.2 Moreover, the petitioner was given lump sum payments by the RNT Medical Branch, Udaipur, without obtaining written permission from the competent authority, thus violating the bank’s instructions. A disciplinary inquiry has been initiated against the bank employees involved in these actions. Since the petitioner has concealed these vital facts, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having perused the contents of the petition and after going through the appended material therewith vis-a-vis the corresponding stand taken in the reply, I am of the view that there are disputed question of facts involved in the present case. 6. While on one hand, petitioner claims that no doubt her services were dispensed with some time in the month of January, 2012 which is the conceded position by herself and so is the case of the bank as is borne out from the preliminary objection (A) that her claim was rejected vide a letter dated 23.01.2012, to which no further additional affidavit and / or rejoinder has been filed and thus, it is would be safe to assume that the said position is uncontroverted. 7. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner, at this stage, disputes that after passing of the aforesaid letter, her services were re-engaged by the Bank on part-time basis and she continued to work on part- time basis on a monthly payment of Rs.1,440/- in support of which, she has appended a cheque dated 01.03.2014 (Annex.-1). 8. Assuming that the petitioner’s services were re-hired, that still would not give her any extended period of limitation to challenge the rejection of the earlier claim in January, 2012 qua which there is no explanation as to why the petition was filed belatedly in the year 2016. 9. Even if certain representations were filed by the petitioner against rejection of her claim, same would not result in extending the period of limitation which though, strictly speaking, is not applicable in the writ jurisdiction, but regardless, the delay, if any, has to be reasonable and not as long as 4 years as in the present case. 10. On a Court query, it transpires that the conceded position is that petitioner never worked with the bank, even on part-time basis, after the year 2015. Being a part-time employee, in any case, she has no vested right to claim any minimum of the pay scale and she was entitled to be paid as per the applicable bank policy for the part time worker. 11. In the premise, it appears that the petitioner has, at one stage, acquiesced to the rejection of the claim and at this stage, no grounds are made out to reopen it belatedly. 12. Taking a wholesome view of the matter i.e. involvement of disputed facts as well as on the ground of delay and latches, I, therefore, find no grounds to interfere. 13. Petition is dismissed. 14. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.