ORDER This L.P.A has been preferred against the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2444 of 2003 dated 30.03.2012, in which, the learned Single Judge has directed the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short 'J.S.E.B') to pay 50 % back wages to respondent no. 1 from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation and held the J.S.E.B. responsible for making requisite payment. Short point falling for consideration is whether the respondent having been dismissed from service before creation of the appellant-J.S.E.B., the J.S.E.B shall be held responsible to pay the legal dues to the 1st respondent. 2. Brief facts are that the respondent was the General Secretary of the Electricity workers' Union and had worked for the welfare of the Electricity Workers' Union as well as the Board in a cordial and peaceful manner. Charges were framed against the 1st respondent alleging that he has assaulted his superior and misbehaved with him. The 1st respondent was served with the charge-sheet vide Board's order dated 8.4.1996 and the Deputy Director of Personnel, B.S.E.B, Patna was appointed as Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Officer after holding the enquiry found that the charges framed against the 1st respondent are proved and recommended the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty. Considering the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 22.6.2000. Being aggrieved by the said order the 1st respondent preferred an appeal on 18.7.2000 before the Chairman, B.S.E.B, Patna (appellate authority) and the appellate authority confirmed the punishment of dismissal vide order dated 15.1.2001. 3. Challenging the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 22.6.2000, which was confirmed by the appellate authority on 15.1.2001, the 1st respondent preferred W.P.(S) No. 2444 of 2003. After hearing the parties and after referring to the judgment reported in 2000(1) LAB. I.C 221, learned Single Judge quashed the punishment of dismissal from service and directed the appellant-J.S.E.B to pay 50 % of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation with all the retiral benefits and learned Single Judge held the appellant-J.S.E.B responsible for making requisite payment. I.C 221, learned Single Judge quashed the punishment of dismissal from service and directed the appellant-J.S.E.B to pay 50 % of the back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation with all the retiral benefits and learned Single Judge held the appellant-J.S.E.B responsible for making requisite payment. The learned Single Judge took the aforesaid view, taking into consideration the fact that the service record of 1st respondent through out the service remained unblemished and the appellant-J.S.E.B and B.S.E.B were unable to contradict the said fact and the disciplinary authority while inflicting major punishment failed to consider this very aspect of the matter and has imposed a harsh penalty without proper consideration of the facts, which were required to be considered before imposing major punishment of dismissal from service. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed in the writ petition, the appellant-J.S.E.B has preferred this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that 1st respondent was dismissed from service well before the creation of the appellant-J.S.E.B and, therefore, he was the employee of the B.S.E.B, before these proceeding was initiated against him and the 1st respondent only served under J.S.E.B till his date of superannuation. Learned counsel further contended even if termination or dismissal order is set aside the 1st respondent being an employee of B.S.E.B, the action taken and consequences thereupon rest only upon B.S.E.B and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was not right in holding the J.S.E.B responsible to pay the legal dues. 5. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that J.S.E.B was constituted on 1.4.2001 and the 1st respondent attained the age of superannuation only in the year 2004 and by virtue of court's order when the 1st respondent notionally re-instated in service, the 1st respondent is deemed to be an employee of J.S.E.B., and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held the J.S.E.B responsible and the impugned order cannot be faulted with. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon 2004(1) J.C.R 16 (Jhr). 6. Learned counsel for the B.S.E.B submitted that the employees who retired after 1.4.2001 either by regular superannuation or by virtue of court's order, only J.S.E.B is responsible to pay the dues. The learned counsel also placed reliance upon 2004(1) J.C.R 16 (Jhr). 6. Learned counsel for the B.S.E.B submitted that the employees who retired after 1.4.2001 either by regular superannuation or by virtue of court's order, only J.S.E.B is responsible to pay the dues. Learned counsel submitted that even though 1st respondent was dismissed from service 22.6.2000, which was confirmed by the order of appellate authority vide order dated 15.1.2001 his superannuation is in the year 2004 and, therefore, only J.S.E.B is responsible for payment of back wages and also the retiral dues. 7. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. 8. History of constitution of J.S.E.B has been discussed in paragraph 2 of the judgment reported in 2004 (1) JCR 16 (Jhr), which reads as under: “On 22.3.2001, the Central Government, in terms of the tripartite decision arrived at and acting under Section 62 (4) of the Reorganization Act, issued a provisional order to the effect that the assets, liabilities, rights and undertakings of the existing Bihar State Electricity Board shall be allocated provisionally with effect from 1.4.2001 in the manner indicated in that order. It was specifically provided therein that the respective State Electricity Boards will have the right to collect revenues/arrears from the consumers located within the territories of the concerned States. Thus, the order of the Central Government made functional the Jharkhand State Electricity Board in the matter of assets and liabilities and collection of revenues only with effect from 1.4.2001.” 9. In this case, the punishment of dismissal was imposed on the 1st respondent on 22.6.2000 by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 15.1.2001. Learned Single Judge set aside the punishment of dismissal, which was confirmed by the appellate authority; but in the meanwhile the 1st respondent attained the age of superannuation in 2004. Since the 1st respondent has attained the age of superannuation, there is no question of actual re-instatement in the service; but was notionally re-instated in the service. When there is notional re-instatement, it must be deemed that the 1st respondent was re-instated in J.S.E.B since the respondent attained the age of superannuation in 2004. Between 2001 to 2004, the 1st respondent is deemed to be in the service of J.S.E.B which came into effect from 1.4.2001. Learned Single has thus rightly held the J.S.E.B responsible for making the requisite payment. Between 2001 to 2004, the 1st respondent is deemed to be in the service of J.S.E.B which came into effect from 1.4.2001. Learned Single has thus rightly held the J.S.E.B responsible for making the requisite payment. The L.P.A has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.