petitioner submitted an application for re-employment to the post of VicePrincipal and, therefore, vide order dated 10.05.2012 the respondents reemployed the petitioner to the said post for a period of one year. Upon completion of his tenure of one year to the said post, the petitioner applied for a further tenure of re-employment on 20.04.2013. However, instead of being immediately re-employed, he was re-employed to the said post only on 02.12.2013 and, thus, remained out of employment from 01.05.2013 to 02.12.2013. The petitioner, therefore, submitted representations to the respondents requesting them to grant him re-employment to the said post w.e.f. 01.05.2013. Upon not receiving any reply to his representations, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 29.01.2014 to the respondents requesting them to release the service benefits w.e.f 01.05.2013 to 02.12.2013. However, the respondent rejected the petitioner's representations vide their order dated 01.03.2014. 3. Aggrieved by the respondents' rejection of his representations, the petitioner, after his superannuation on 30.04.2014, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of OA no. 1554/2014 on 06.05.2014 seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to release his service benefits for the period between 01.05.2013 and 02.12.2013. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner alleged that as per the respondents' own Resolution, he was fully qualified and eligible for re-employment after the expiry of the first year, i.e., from 01.05.2013 but the respondents malafidely delayed his re-employment, as a result of which he could only be re-employed on 02.12.2013. Therefore, the petitioner contends, he was entitled to receive his salary for the aforesaid period during which he was unemployed. On the other hand, the respondents refuted the aforesaid allegation of the
