JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for back wages from the period 24.10.2016 till his date of reinstatement i.e. 29.04.2019 which has been denied by part of the impugned order dated 29.04.2019 by which his services were reinstated with the rider that he will not get the back wages for the period which he has not worked, on the principle of “no work no pay”. 3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner joined service on 05.03.2016. The petitioner was Commerce Graduate but he was appointed as Trained Graduate Arts Teacher. The respondents later on terminated his service on 24.10.2016 on the ground that he being a Commerce Graduate cannot be appointed against the vacant seats of Arts Graduate. The respondents have taken a plea that due to oversight, he was appointed as Trained Graduate Arts Teacher, though the petitioner was a Commerce Graduate. Not only this petitioner, but there were several other persons like the petitioner on whose behalf batch of the writ petitions were filed, in which it was decided that a Commerce Graduate can also be appointed against the post of Arts teacher. Thereafter a decision was taken by the Government that Commerce Graduate can be appointed as Arts teacher and the Graduation in Commerce can be placed in the category of “Social Science” to get appointment against Arts subject. The Government took the said decision on 28.08.2018 vide Resolution eq-No.513/1-50/2018/1675 (Annexure-13). Once the decision was taken, the petitioner was reinstated in service by order dated 29.04.2019. In the said order it has been mentioned that period during which the petitioner remained out of service will be regularized, but he will not get his salary for the intervening period on the principle of “no work no pay”. The petitioner has challenged that part of the aforesaid order. 4. Back wages is not an absolute right which one employee can claim. It depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be any straight jacket formula for the same. 5. In this case admittedly the petitioner is a Commerce Graduate. There was dispute and confusion as to whether a graduate in Commerce can work against the post of Trained Graduate Arts Teacher. Since there was a confusion, his service was terminated on 24.10.2016. 5. In this case admittedly the petitioner is a Commerce Graduate. There was dispute and confusion as to whether a graduate in Commerce can work against the post of Trained Graduate Arts Teacher. Since there was a confusion, his service was terminated on 24.10.2016. As per the respondent his appointment was done due to inadvertence. The issue as to whether the Graduate in Commerce is equivalent to Graduate in Arts or not or whether he can be appointment as a Social Science Teacher was finally decided by the Government vide the Resolution dated 28.08.2018, wherein, it was decided that candidates, who are Graduate in Commerce, can also be appointed against the Social Science vacancies. Once the issue was resolved, the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 29.04.2019. The respondents have directed that the period during which he was out of service will be regularized but invoking the principle of “no work no pay”, it was decided that he will not get his salary for the intervening period. 6. In my opinion, since there was a genuine dispute/confusion and the issue was not clear as to whether a person who is a Graduate in Commerce will become eligible to be appointed against the Social Science post or not, the respondents were correct initially in terminating the service of the petitioner, but once a decision was taken on 28.08.2018 to the effect that graduate in Commerce will be eligible for the post which falls in the Social Science Group, then the petitioner ought to have been immediately issued a letter of reinstatement. The respondents issued the said letter on 29.04.2019. 7. Thus, I find that as the situation was fluid from 24.10.2016 till 28.08.2018, it will not be proper to direct the State to pay back wages for the aforesaid period, but once the matter had crystalized and the respondents have reinstated the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for back wages from the date of decision taken by the State i.e. from 28.08.2018 till 29.04.2019. Thus, I direct that the same should be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. 8. If the petitioner has any other grievance beyond the prayer made in the writ petition, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand for seeking appropriate relief. 9. 8. If the petitioner has any other grievance beyond the prayer made in the writ petition, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Director, Primary Education, Government of Jharkhand for seeking appropriate relief. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.