academic year 2009-2010. Again the petitioner approached the third respondent for reemployment, but the third respondent had orally stated that the order of reemployment will be communicated as soon as possible, believing the words the petitioner attended the School till 03.07.2009 as per the direction of the third respondent. The petitioner had also participated in the reinforcement training for a period from 04.07.2009 to 06.07.2009. Again, the petitioner approached the respondents for reemployment. However, the respondents had refused. Subsequently, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No. 13088 of 2010 for Mandamus directing the respondents to disburse the salary for a period of reemployment from 01.07.2009 to 30.05.2010. This Court has directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 24.09.2010 during which the petitioner was engaged and thereafter pass appropriate orders in the light of the judgment rendered in Correspondent Secretary and Managing Trustee, Salem Vs M.Rajagopalan and others reported in 2008 (1) MLJ 312. Since the respondents have not granted the same, the petitioner again approached the respondents. Finally, the respondents have passed an impugned order stating that the petitioner was relieved on 30.06.2009 and the petitioner was also receiving terminal benefits and pension from 01.07.2009. The petitioner had not served from 01.07.2009 to 30.05.2010. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to salary. Aggrieved over such order, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.
