JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri K. M. Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Services-III. 2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: “It is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order of direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Memo No.ESE01-SEDN0CSE/82/SER-II/2019-1 dated 25.01.2020 and consequential proceedings issued by the 3rd respondent vide Rc.No.1281/A2/2020 dated 06.03.2020 treating the period from termination to reposting i.e from 28.04.2015 to 19.11.2017 as dies non in respect of the petitioner for all consequential purposes is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and also violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed by the 3rd respondent as Physical Education Teacher (PET) in Education Department in Guntur District vide Rc.No.12311/A8/2008 dated 16.10.2009 being selected through DSC- 2008. He joined on 19.10.2009 and his probation period was declared successful on 18.10.2011 and services were regularized vide proceedings in Dis.No.11678/A5/2012 dated 20.10.2012. 4. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice dated 04.04.2015 by the 3rd respondent-District Educational Officer, Guntur, as to why the petitioner’s services be not terminated to implement the order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.9147 of 2009 by some other candidate, to accommodate that candidate. 5. In the DSC, 2008 selection the petitioner had secured 48 marks and was the last selected candidate in his category. The Tribunal in O.A.No.9147 of 2009, directed to award ½ mark to the petitioner therein who had secured 47½ marks. Consequently his marks also became 48 ie same as of the present petitioner but the petitioner being younger in age the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for termination, to implement the order of the Tribunal in favour of the other candidate. The petitioner submitted explanation on 13.04.2015 but inspite thereof the order of termination was passed by the 3rd respondent on 28.04.2015, against which the petitioner filed O.A.No.2469 of 2015 which was allowed by A.P. Administrative Tribunal vide judgment dated 07.07.2017. The order of termination was set aside. The petitioner was reinstated in service by respondents vide proceedings in Rc.No.817/TRC-2/2016 dated 25.10.2017, pursuant to which the petitioner joined on 20.11.2017. 6. The order of termination was set aside. The petitioner was reinstated in service by respondents vide proceedings in Rc.No.817/TRC-2/2016 dated 25.10.2017, pursuant to which the petitioner joined on 20.11.2017. 6. The petitioner’s representation dated 02.05.2018 to treat the period with effect from 28.04.2015 the date of termination upto 19.11.2017 the date preceding the reinstatement, on duty and for payment of salary, was decided by the 1st respondent/State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, AP Secretariat, Amaravati vide Memo dated 25.01.2020 to treat the said period as ‘Dies – Non’ for all consequential purposes. Against that order dated 28.01.2020 the present petition has been filed. 7. Sri K.M. Krishna Reddy submits that once the petitioner’s O.A.No.2469 of 2015 was allowed and the order of termination was set aside, all the consequential benefits shall follow. The respondents are legally bound to treat the period in question as on duty and pay the salary for the said period with all other service benefits. He submits that the petitioner was not at any fault and his services were terminated not on any charge against him. The order impugned treating period as ‘Dies Non’ even does not assign any reason and is a non speaking order. 8. Learned Government Pleader for Services-III submits that the 3rd respondent-District Education Officer also passed order pursuant to the order passed by the 1st respondent-Secretary to the Government, which are sustainable on the principle of ‘no work-no pay’. The petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. The relevant portion of the order under challenge reads as under:- “The attention of the Commissioner of School Education, A.P., is invited to letter cited. He is informed that the proposal to treat the period from termination to re-posting i.e. from 28.04.2015 to 19.11.2017 in respect of Sri Katuri Ram Babu has been examined by the Government and it is decided to treat the said period as ‘Dies-Non’ for all consequential purposes. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, A.P., is requested to take further action, accordingly.” 11. 2. The Commissioner of School Education, A.P., is requested to take further action, accordingly.” 11. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the petitioner’s representation dated 21.05.2018 has been rejected merely by saying that the matter was examined by the government and it was decided to treat the said period as ‘Dies-Non’ for all consequential purposes. Any reason for such decision is not forth coming. There is no consideration on the relevant aspects, in particular, that the petitioner’s termination was not on any charge against him; he was not at any fault in getting his appointment, which was pursuant to DSC-2008 in which he was duly selected and that his order of termination having been set side by the A.P Administrative Tribunal the necessary consequences shall follow to which the petitioner would be entitled under law. 12. The expression “dies-non” is defined in new Oxford Dictionary as “a day on which no legal business can be done, or which does not count for legal or other purposes. Origin Latin, short for dies non juridicus ‘non-judicial day.’ In Black’s Law Dictionary “dies non” is defined as “a day exempt from court proceedings, such as a holiday or a Sunday.- Often shortened to dies non.” 13. In State of Punjab vs. Dr. P.L. Singla, 2008(8) SCC 469 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where the employee who is un-authorisedly absent does not report back to duty and offer any specific explanation or where the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorized absence. Such disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect. Where the punishment is either dismissal or removal, it may not be necessary to pass any consequential orders relating to the period of unauthorized absence (unless the rules require otherwise). Where the punishment awarded for the unauthorized absence, does not result in serverance of employment and the employee continues in service, it will be necessary to pass some consequential order as to how the period of absence should be accounted for and dealt with in the service record. If the unauthorized absence remains unaccounted, it will result in break in service, thereby affecting the seniority, pension, pay etc., of the employee. If the unauthorized absence remains unaccounted, it will result in break in service, thereby affecting the seniority, pension, pay etc., of the employee. Any consequential order directing how the period of absence should be accounted, is an accounting and administrative procedure, which does not affect or supersede the order imposing punishment. 14. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 11 to 14 of Dr. P.L. Singla (supra) as under:- 11. Unauthorized absence (or overstaying leave), is an act of indiscipline. Whenever there is an unauthorised absence by an employee, two courses are open to the employer. The first is to condone the unauthorized absence by accepting the explanation and sanctioning leave for the period of the unauthorized absence in which event the misconduct stood condoned. The second is to treat the unauthorized absence as a misconduct, hold an enquiry and impose a punishment for the misconduct. 12. An employee who remains unauthorisedly absent for some period (or who overstays the period of leave), on reporting back to duty, may apply for condonation of the absence by offering an explanation for such unauthorized absence and seek grant of leave for that period. If the employer is satisfied that there was sufficient cause or justification for the unauthorized absence (or the overstay after expiry of leave), the employer may condone the act of indiscipline and sanction leave post facto. If leave is so sanctioned and the unauthorized absence is condoned, it will not be open to the employer to thereafter initiate disciplinary proceedings in regard to the said misconduct unless it had, while sanctioning leave, reserved the right to take disciplinary action in regard to the act of indiscipline. 13. We may note here that a request for condoning the absence may be favourably considered where the unauthorized absence is of a few days or a few months and the reason for absence is stated to be the sudden, serious illness or unexpected bereavement in the family. But long unauthorized absences are not usually condoned. In fact in Security services where discipline is of utmost importance, even a few of days overstay is viewed very seriously. Be that as it may. 14. But long unauthorized absences are not usually condoned. In fact in Security services where discipline is of utmost importance, even a few of days overstay is viewed very seriously. Be that as it may. 14. Where the employee who is unauthorizedly absent does not report back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation, or where the explanation offered by the employee is not satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary action in regard to the unauthorised absence. Such disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty will depend upon the nature of service, the position held by the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation for the absence. Where the punishment is either dismissal or removal, it may not be necessary to pass any consequential orders relating to the period of unauthorized absence (unless the rules require otherwise). Where the punishment awarded for the unauthorized absence, does not result in severance of employment and the employee continues in service, it will be necessary to pass some consequential order as to how the period of absence should be accounted for and dealt with in the service record. If the unauthorized absence remains unaccounted, it will result in break in service, thereby affecting the seniority, pension, pay etc., of the employee. Any consequential order directing how the period of absence should be accounted, is an accounting and administrative procedure, which does not affect or supersede the order imposing punishment. 15. In All India Central Government Health Scheme for Employees Association, Nagpur and another v Union of India and others, 2005 SCCOnline Bombay 537, it was observed that “dies non” is stated a day on which Judges do not sit or went on which normal business is not transacted. The expression “dies-non” in the context of the settlement, in that case between the employees association and the employer, was interpreted to mean that the period declared as dies non was to be treated as without any business. 16. From the aforesaid, it is clear that where the employee abstains willfully from duty, if the period of absence is treated as ‘dies non’, it is only for an accounting and administrative procedure to avoid break in service. 16. From the aforesaid, it is clear that where the employee abstains willfully from duty, if the period of absence is treated as ‘dies non’, it is only for an accounting and administrative procedure to avoid break in service. The seniority, pension, pay etc of the employee are not affected. 17. In the present case, the period in question cannot be termed as willful absence from duty by the petitioner and there is also no order of punishment imposed on the petitioner. The order of termination was set aside by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. This is not a case where in some departmental enquiry, order of punishment was passed and the period of absence of the employee was to be accounted for and so to maintain the continuity of the employee into service order of ‘dies non’ was to be passed for giving continuity in service. The order of termination having been quashed, the petitioner became entitled to all the consequential service benefits flowing from setting aside of the order of termination including continuity in service. The petitioner could not be denied salary etc for the period he remained out of service of the respondents by declaring that period as dies-non. The result of quashing the order of termination, by the Tribunal, is that the petitioner continued in service, without any break in service and entitled to all the consequential service benefits. There is no question of passing order of dies-non by the employer so as to deprive him the service benefits including payment of salary etc for the period declared as ‘dies-non’. 18. The principle of ‘no work-no pay’ shall also not be applicable in such cases as the present one, where the services of employee are terminated for no charge and for no fault on the part of the employee as in such cases, employee cannot be blamed for having not worked during the period in question of his own. 19. In State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Dayanand Chakrawarty and others, (2013) 7 SCC 595 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if an employee is prevented by the employer from performing his duties, the employee cannot be blamed for having not worked and the principle of ‘no work no pay shall not be applicable to such employee. Paragraph 37 of Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra) is reproduced as under: “37. Paragraph 37 of Dayanand Chakrawarty (supra) is reproduced as under: “37. In view of the orders passed by this Court in Harwindra Kumar(supra), Radhey Shyam Gautam(supra) and Jaswant Singh(supra), it was not open to the High Court to rely on some other decision of this Court, ratio of which is not applicable in the present case for determining back wages of respondents restricting it to be 20% of the basic salary. We observe that the principle of ‘no pay no work’ is not applicable to the employees who were guided by specific rules like Leave Rules etc. relating to absence from duty. Such principle can be applied to only those employees who were not guided by any specific rule relating to absence from duty. If an employee is prevented by the employer from performing his duties, the employee cannot be blamed for having not worked, and the principle of ‘no pay no work’ shall not be applicable to such employee.” 20. For the aforesaid reasons, the submission of the learned Government Pleader for Services-III that the petitioner is not entitled for payment of salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’ cannot be accepted. 21. Having regard to the above, the order dated 25.01.2020 issued by the 1st respondent is unsustainable and is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to pass fresh order keeping in view the above observations/directions, within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order before the 1st respondent. 22. The writ petition is allowed in part. No order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall also stand closed.