CWP No.1639 of 2008. 26.11.2008 Present: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for respondent No.5. This writ petition is directed against the cancellation of transfer order of the petitioner. Before considering this petition we must look into certain more facts. Opposite Party No.5 was transferred vide transfer order dated 10th October, 2007 from Samnoli to Behdhunta while model code of conduct was in existence. The same was challenged by Opposite Party No.5 by filing Original Application before the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the model code of conduct was in existence. Therefore, the order of transfer of Opposite Party No.5- applicant was stayed. Further, subsequently Opposite Party No.5 was transferred vide order dated 31st July, 2008. By the time, the aforesaid Tribunal was abolished. Therefore, Opposite Party No.5 had filed writ petition No.1492 of 2008 before this Court challenging that the petitioner cannot be transferred in the light of the interim order passed by the erstwhile Tribunal and in the process the transfer order of Opposite Party No.5 was cancelled and the writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous. The consequences of the said cancellation order of Opposite Party No.5 led to the filing of this petition for the reasons that the writ petitioner’s order of transfer has now been withdrawn by order dated 5th/6th September, 2008 contained in Annexure P-5. We are of the considered opinion that in case a judicial order staying the transfer order passed by any Court is in existence, the State Government cannot transfer the incumbent in the light of the restraint order. Accordingly, a correct decision -2- was taken by the State Government by canceling the order of Opposite Party No.5. The consequence is that the petitioner’s order has been rightly withdrawn. No violation of law has been alleged by the petitioner as far as passing of the impugned order is concerned. Further we find that there is no allegation of strong malafides. The petitioner has apprehension that since her transfer order has been withdrawn it will lead to issuance of charge sheet upon her. Learned Advocate General fairly submits that the apprehension has no foundation as no charge-sheet would be issued to the petitioner in the light of the withdrawal of the transfer order. Accordingly, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is dismissed, so also the other pending applications. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. November 26, 2008. ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (rc)