ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner claiming wages for the period 01.10.2014 to 26.03.2017. 2. This Court has heard Sri. C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for the respondents. 3. The case of the petitioner as submitted by Sri. C. Raghu is that the proceedings, dated 19.10.2019, which were issued are totally incorrect as the petitioner was physically prevented from working and that it is not a case of the petitioner not working by himself. He points out that no relieving order was given to him when he was illegally transferred in the middle of the academic year to Ravipadu from Cumbum. Thereafter, the Deputy Educational Officer passed orders in 2017 cancelling the transfer orders and directed him to report for duty. It is submitted that the petitioner reported for duty at Cumbum on 27.03.2017. He states that in this entire period he could not work as he was physically prevented from working. To support this contention learned counsel relies upon proceedings dated 24.03.2017, by which transfer orders were cancelled, wherein it is mentioned that the husband of the Correspondent of the school caused him to be absent from the school from 25.09.2014 onwards. On this basis, learned counsel argues that the petitioner is entitled to wages for the period. 4. In reply to this, learned Government Pleader for Education submits that it is hard to believe that the petitioner was physically prevented from joining duties or attending school for full three-year period. He points out that in the entire three-year period there is only one representation dated 29.01.2018 and that this conduct of the petitioner is hard to believe. Learned Government Pleader also argued on the basis of counter affidavit filed that the wages were not paid as on enquiry it was found that the petitioner never attended duties from 25.09.2014 to 26.03.2017. Since there is no evidence to support his claim no bill could be raised. He points out that in case of Sri. M. Pandurangaiah, the other teacher wages were paid as proof was found that he attended the school. But in case of the petitioner, since no evidence was noticed or filed, the claim for payment of salary was rejected. Learned Government Pleader points out that the order dated 19.10.2019, which is impugned clearly shows these details. M. Pandurangaiah, the other teacher wages were paid as proof was found that he attended the school. But in case of the petitioner, since no evidence was noticed or filed, the claim for payment of salary was rejected. Learned Government Pleader points out that the order dated 19.10.2019, which is impugned clearly shows these details. Therefore, learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any salary. He also states that the principle of no work no pay is applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 5. This Court notices that the order dated 19.10.2019 is a reasoned order. As righty pointed out for almost three years the petitioner was not attending duty. But from 01.10.2014 to 26.03.2017 he is claiming salary. The only ground urged is that the husband of the Correspondent of the school prevented him from attending duties. This Court finds it hard to believe that an educated person like petitioner, working as a teacher in a school, could keep quiet for almost three-year period if he was physically prevented from attending the school. In the normal course of human conduct there would be a protest against the same. In the entire three-year period there is only one representation dated 29.01.2018, wherein a simple request is made for payment of salaries after they have joined in duty. This is made both by the petitioner and the other teacher. No ground of “physical obstruction” is spelt out in this letter also. In the impugned order the reason for payment to the other teacher is clearly mentioned. Since the respondents found from an examination of the record that the other teacher attended duties he was recommended to be paid salary. In the case of the petitioner no such evidence is found. After this order is passed the writ is filed. Even in the Writ Petition other than the reference to a sentence in the order dated 24.03.2017, no evidence is filed to show that the petitioner was “prevented” for this entire period from attending the duties. No explanation is forthcoming why no protest or a complaint is made against this alleged forcible prevention for over 3 years. The writ affidavit is also silent. No explanation is forthcoming why no protest or a complaint is made against this alleged forcible prevention for over 3 years. The writ affidavit is also silent. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that there is absolutely no evidence filed to show that the petitioner was in any way prevented from attending his duties in the school in this entire period. Without working he is not entitled to salary. 6. With the above observation the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.