ORDER : Kiranmayee Mandava, J. Heard Sri A.K. Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the 2nd respondent vide DO. No. 100/2021, C.No.355/A8/2018 dated 23.01.2021, declaring the period out of employment between 09.11.2015 to 13.09.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 21.09.2020 as ‘not on duty’ and treating the same as ‘No work, no pay'. 3. The petitioner was appointed as a constable in the 1st respondent Department. 4. It is contended that a complaint was made against the petitioner and two other constables & and one Station House Officer by victim alleging ill-treatment meted out to him at the police station, without registering a crime. The mother of the said victim appears to have addressed a letter to the High Court and the same was taken up as Suo Motu Writ Petition vide W.P. No.10981 of 2002. The said Writ Petition was disposed of holding that the victim was ill-treated and appropriate action should be initiated against the petitioner. Thus the 2nd respondent was directed to take appropriate action. Pursuant to the said direction, case was registered against the petitioner for offences under Sections 109, 217, 323 324, 347, 348 r/w 34 of IPC. In the said case, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to three years of imprisonment and fine was imposed. On appeal being filed by the petitioner before the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry, against conviction order, the sentence of imprisonment was suspended 5. It is contended that, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 18.11.2018 dismissed the petitioner from service, observing that the petitioner was not entitled to continue in service, and that the said order was passed without any notice or inquiry. 6. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of conviction before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru, East Godavari District, was allowed, setting aside the judgment of conviction imposed by the trial Judge. Thereafter, pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.5293 of 2020, filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to consider his reinstatement, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 11.09.2020. It is contended that the period during which the petitioner was out of service/employment between 22.06.2018 to 21.09.2020, was treated as ‘not on duty’. Thereafter, pursuant to orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.5293 of 2020, filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the 2nd respondent to consider his reinstatement, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 11.09.2020. It is contended that the period during which the petitioner was out of service/employment between 22.06.2018 to 21.09.2020, was treated as ‘not on duty’. The petitioner contends that since the order of conviction was set aside on 01.04.2019, the 2nd  respondent did not reinstate him into the service despite several representations, and it was only pursuant to the directions of this Court in W.P. No.5293 of 2020, he was reinstated on 11.09.2020. 7. The learned counsel relying on the provisions of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, contends that the period of 22.06.2018 to 21.09.2020 during which the petitioner was out of employment should be treated as on duty and consequently prays for directions to the respondents to grant consequential benefits of continuity of the service. 8. The respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that since the petitioner is solely responsible for his conduct and the government is not responsible for the petitioner being out of employment, applying the principle of ‘No work, no pay’, the petitioner is not entitled to the continuity of service or regularization of the period during which he was out of employment. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, A.K. Kishore Reddy, relying on the decisions of this Court in W.P. No. 14343 of 2020 passed in case of one of the co-accused, requests for similar order to be passed as was passed in the same. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the clause FR -54 of Fundamental Rules, submits that whenever an order of reinstatement is made, the appointing authority has to pass appropriate proceedings regarding ‘Pay and Allowances’ payable to the government servant for his absence from duty and whether such period of absence should be treated as spent on duty. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021, requests passing of similar orders. The petitioner in W.P. No 14343 of 2020 is similarly situated and was co-accused along with the petitioner in the Calendar Case registered against them in C.C. No.114/2015. 12. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021, requests passing of similar orders. The petitioner in W.P. No 14343 of 2020 is similarly situated and was co-accused along with the petitioner in the Calendar Case registered against them in C.C. No.114/2015. 12. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh Vs. Brijmoham Kaur, (2007) 11 SCC 488 And further relying on the decision of the Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Nayak, S/o. Bhagbali Nayak Vs. State of Chattisgarh through Secretary, Department of Energy, 2025 SCC Online Chh 4561 and on the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of V.C. Jain Vs. State Bank of India, 2023 SCC Online Del 6949 submits that applying the principle of ‘No work No pay’, the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit for the period during which he was out of employment. In the case of Union Territory, Chandigarh i/s. Brijmoham Kaur, it is observed as under: "9. The direction of the Tribunal which is affirmed by the High Court, in our view, is against the all cannons of law directed by this Court. It is settled law that when an incumbent does not discharge any duty, the principle of no work no pay would be applicable. This consistent view has been taken by this Court keeping in view the public interest that any government servant who does not discharge his duty should not be allowed to draw pay and allowances at the cost of public exchequer.” 13. Considered the rival submissions. 14. This Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 in the case of similarly situated person, who was also one of the accused along with the petitioner in the same crime, following its earlier decision in W.P. No.1823 of 2021 directed the respondents to pass appropriate orders regularizing the period of suspension with effect from 09.11.2015 to 13.09.2016 and 22.06.2018 to 21-09-2020 as on duty for all purposes including arrears of 'Pay and Allowances’. 15. The respondents have not made out any case, to depart from the earlier decisions of this Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021. 16. 15. The respondents have not made out any case, to depart from the earlier decisions of this Court in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021. 16. Following the aforesaid orders and for the reasons recorded therein, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the orders passed in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. 17. Office to enclose copies of the orders passed in W.P. No.14343 of 2020 and W.P. No.1823 of 2021 to this order. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.