JUDGMENT R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. As both the writ petitions are filed against the order passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in OA No. 10358 of 2011, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of disposal, I refer to the facts as narrated in WP No. 5358 of 2013. 2. This writ petition is filed by the respondents in OA No. 10358 of 2011, aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2012, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal. The 1st respondent herein, who was applicant before the Tribunal, has prayed for a direction to the petitioners herein for her absorption as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the School Education Department. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the said application, with a direction to appoint the 1st respondent herein as a Secondary Grade Teacher in School Education Department, by protecting her seniority and pay, with all other benefits. 3. The 1st respondent herein has passed 10th class and completed three-year intermediate diversified course, which is equivalent to Secondary Grade Training. Her name was registered on the rolls of the Employment Exchange, Vijayawada, and her name was also sponsored by the said Employment Exchange for the post of Nursery School Teacher and she was appointed as such by the Block Development Officer, Avanigadda, by order dated 4th December, 1980 and she joined in the said post on 10.12.1980. After bifurcation of Panchayat Samitis into Mandals, her pay was fixed in the time scale of Rs. 530-850/-. Thereafter, the Mandal Parishad, Krishna surrendered the posts of Nursery School Teacher and Balwadi Teacher to the control of the District Women and Child Welfare Officer, Krishna at Vijayawada, by issuing proceedings in Rc.No.31/87-C, dated 1.1.1988. Though orders are passed surrendering the services of 1st respondent along with the post, it appears, she was not continued in the Women Development and Child Welfare Department. 4. When similarly placed person and junior to the 1st respondent, by name, Smt. V. Nancharamma, who was also transferred along with the post and was continued after such transfer in view of the decision taken by the Government for absorption of Balwadi Teachers by extending training as Secondary Grade Teachers, the 1st respondent herein has approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 10358 of 2011, seeking to extend the same benefit, as she was senior to Smt. V. Nancharamma. Before the Tribunal, it was the case of petitioners herein that when the 1st respondent was working as Balwadi Teacher, as her services were already transferred to the District Women and Child Welfare Officer, Krishna by proceedings dated 1.1.1988, and as she was not continued thereafter, she was not eligible for absorption as Secondary Grade Teacher. 5. The Tribunal, by noticing that the 1st respondent was appointed initially as a Nursery School Teacher, thereafter she was transferred to different places, she was also extended the pay-scale of Secondary Grade Teacher by applying the revised pay-scales of 1986, and she was surrendered along with the post to the District Women and Child Welfare Officer, but for no fault of her, her services were discontinued although she was senior to one Smt. V. Nancharamma, and that the 1st respondent has already undergone Secondary Grade Training, has allowed the application with a direction to the Commissioner and Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department, to re-appoint the applicant as Secondary Grade Teacher in the School Education Department. 6. The writ petition in WP No. 1277 of 2013 is filed by the Commissioner and Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department, mainly on the ground that after her post was surrendered, the 1st respondent has not worked with them, as such, the question of re-appointing or absorption in their department will not arise. 7. In the present writ petition in WP No. 5358 of 2013 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department and others, mainly, it is the case of petitioners that as much as the 1st respondent was already surrendered in the year 1988 and discontinued since then, she cannot seek the benefit basing on the case of Smt. V. Nancharamma, who was absorbed as Secondary Grade Teacher. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have also perused the material on record. 9. In this case, it is to be noticed that the 1st respondent/applicant, after completion of her three-year Intermediate Diversified Course under teacher education, has enrolled her name in the Employment Exchange at Vijayawada. On sponsoring her name by the Employment Exchange, she was appointed as a Nursery School Teacher, as early as on 4.12.1980 by the Block Development Officer and she was transferred to several places. On sponsoring her name by the Employment Exchange, she was appointed as a Nursery School Teacher, as early as on 4.12.1980 by the Block Development Officer and she was transferred to several places. When the pay-scales of Teachers were revised in the year 1986, the benefit of revised pay-scales was also extended to the 1st respondent, but only on the ground that sufficient funds were not available after formation of Mandal Parishads, the Mandal Parishad, Krishna surrendered the posts of Nursery School Teacher and Balwadi Teacher to the Women and Child Welfare Officer, Krishna, vide proceedings Rc.No.31/87-C, dated 1.1.1988. When the 1st respondent is a regularly appointed candidate as Nursery School Teacher, and subsequently worked as Balwadi Teacher and when she was transferred along with the post, the petitioners ought to have continued her services by extending the pay protection. We find no reason for discontinuing her services when she was a regularly appointed candidate initially by the Block Development Officer by following the due procedure. It is not in dispute that Smt. V. Nancharamma, who was appointed in the year 1982 as Nursery School Teacher and who was transferred to the Women and Child Welfare Department along with the post and posted at Balwadi School, Nagayalanka, was continued as such. 10. In the year 2002, there was a move for absorption of Balwadi/Balasevika Teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers after necessary training. In response to the query by the District Educational Officers in the State, the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, has issued proceedings dated 5.11.2002, in Proceedings No. 3262/D1-2/2000, requesting all the District Educational Officers to take action as per the Government Orders, for absorption of qualified Balwadi Teachers as Secondary Grade Teachers. The said orders are issued by the Commissioner and Director of School Education, referring to the orders of Government in Memo No. 19418/Trg.III/2001-1, Education, dated 22.10.2002. It is also not in dispute that as per the proceedings of the Commissioner and Director of School Education, Balwadi Teachers/Balasevika Teachers can be absorbed as Secondary Grade Teachers, by sending them for training. At this point, it is relevant to note that so far as the 1st respondent is concerned, she was already trained and fully eligible for absorption as Secondary Grade Teacher. At this point, it is relevant to note that so far as the 1st respondent is concerned, she was already trained and fully eligible for absorption as Secondary Grade Teacher. Only on account of orders dated 1.1.1988, by which, she was transferred to the Women and Child Welfare Department along with the post, her case was not considered for absorption. When she was appointed by following the regular procedure in the year 1980 and was transferred to several places, and was also extended the revised pay-scales, there was no reason at all for discontinuing her services. Merely on the ground that sufficient funds were not available, the petitioners ought not to have discontinued the 1st respondent, as much as she was a regularly appointed candidate, being sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The Tribunal, having found that discrimination and injustice is caused to the 1st respondent, who is senior to Smt. V. Nancharamma, who was similarly placed, has rightly accepted the case of 1st respondent and issued directions for her absorption. The submission made by the learned Government Pleader that the 1st respondent is not eligible for absorption as she was not on rolls, cannot be accepted. As it is not a case of dispensing with her services by following the method known to law, it is not open to the petitioners to plead that she is not eligible for absorption, particularly, when such benefit is already extended to the similarly placed persons. At the same time, though the 1st respondent is eligible for absorption/re-appointment, by extending the rule of 'no work-no pay', we are of the view that she is not entitled for the salary for the period for which she has not worked. At the same time, we hold that she is entitled for fixation of scale of pay applicable to the Secondary Grade Teachers. For all other purposes except the payment of salary for the interregnum period, petitioners shall treat the 1st respondent, to be in service. 11. While allowing the O.A. filed by the 1st respondent, the Tribunal has issued directions to the Commissioner and Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department to re-appoint the applicant as Secondary Grade Teacher in the School Education Department. 11. While allowing the O.A. filed by the 1st respondent, the Tribunal has issued directions to the Commissioner and Director of Women Development and Child Welfare Department to re-appoint the applicant as Secondary Grade Teacher in the School Education Department. As the petitioner was not appointed in the Women Development and Child Welfare Department after orders were passed transferring her along with the post, we make it clear that the 1st respondent is entitled for appointment as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the School Education Department and the petitioners in WP No. 5358 of 2013 shall appoint her accordingly. 12. The impugned order, dated 11.9.2012, passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 10358 of 2011, stands modified to the extent indicated above. 13. Both the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. 14. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in both the writ petitions, shall stand closed.