Judgment 1. Two writ petitions have been filed. One is C.W.J.C. No. 4895 of 2000 : Central Board for Workers Education V/s.The Central Administrative Tribunal and ano. This was filed on 26 May, 2000. The decision impugned in this writ petition is dated 2 December, 1999. The other writ petition is C.W.J.C. No. 6825 of 2002 : Central Board for Workers Education & Ors. V/s. Sri Sadhu Prasad Sharma. This writ petition is against the order of the Tribunal dated 15 April, 2002. 2. On contempt proceedings it was directed to be listed for hearing before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 24.6.2002 that is to say, the day before yesterday. 3. In so far as the earlier petition is concerned, all that had happened was that the Central Administrative Tribunal had directed, regard being had to the facts and circumstances, to consider and work out the pensionary benefits of the claimant on prorata basis. This was done as the claimant was admittedly an employee of the Central Board for Workers Education, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India. He had been appointed in 1966. His services were placed on deputation with the Bihar State Electricity Board in 1978. 4. Without going into the aspect as to how long the claimant can remain on deputation or ought to have been reverted, one answer has come to the Court from counsel for the petitioner (Central Board for Workers Education) that no formal order had been passed recalling the claimant to join his substantive post upon reversion to the parent department. However, the Court is not going into the aspect as an issue has been created whether consequent upon deputation the claimants lien had been lost. Let this matter remain an issue. For the time being, the aspect in the direction of the Tribunal is not that pension is made available to the claimant as a whole from one quarter only but to consider payment on prorata basis. Clearly, some exercise ought to have been undertaken. There is a meaning in the expression "prorata basis" which in itself implies that possibly the benefits which may be awarded to the claimant may have to be bifurcated on a ratio. Whether it is weightable of years or between the employers is an exercise which has not been undertaken. 5. Clearly, some exercise ought to have been undertaken. There is a meaning in the expression "prorata basis" which in itself implies that possibly the benefits which may be awarded to the claimant may have to be bifurcated on a ratio. Whether it is weightable of years or between the employers is an exercise which has not been undertaken. 5. This Court leaves this issue as the exercise in any case has to be undertaken and it would be appropriate that this exercise is gone into by the Central Board for Workers Education. How much may be the proportion on prorata basis is a defence which may be taken in the contempt proceedings which are pending. The second writ petition was clearly filed to avoid the contempt proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Both the records, thus, are consigned. 6. Dismissed.