COCP No.264 of 2010 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.264 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.7.2010 R.S. More and another ......Petitioners Versus G.P. Taneja ........Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Ms. Sangeeta Dhanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Shri M.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (Oral). The petitioners allege violation of the order dated 9.5.2002 passed by this Court quashing the transfer orders of the petitioners. The petitioners are the Secretaries working in the District Red Cross Societies. The petitioners have been transferred by the Indian Red Cross Society i.e. petitioner No.1 from Panipat to Kaithal and petitioner No.2 from Jind to Rewari (i.e. inter-districts transfers). This Court has quashed the transfers on the ground that there is no jurisdiction with the said Red Cross Society to effect inter-state transfers. The Special Leave to Appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court, but a statement was made on behalf of the appellants therein that the transfers have already been given effect to. Therefore, status- quo was ordered to be maintained. Subsequently, the Civil Appeal came to be decided on 9.12.2009. Before the final hearing of the appeal, the Indian Red Cross Society amended its Rules and as per COCP No.264 of 2010 (O&M) [2] the amended Rules, inter-districts transfer of its employees is permitted. The Court disposed of the appeal as the dispute had become academic. The grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the power of inter-districts transfer is only by virtue of the amendment of the Rules. Therefore, on the day the transfer was effected and the writ petition was allowed, the Indian Red Cross Society has no jurisdiction to effect inter- districts transfer. It is, thus, contended that the only option with the respondent is to pass an administrative order of cancellation of the transfer and on consideration of facts, pass a fresh administrative order of transfer in view of the amended Rules. I do not find any merit in the said argument. Though the order of transfer was quashed by this Court, but the Supreme Court has ordered status quo to be maintained, meaning thereby that the petitioners continued to work at the transferee station of posting. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent has violated the orders passed by this Court. The contention of the petitioners relates to passing of inconsequential administrative orders. In view of the said fact, I do not find that any sufficient ground exists to continue with the present contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. [ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE 14-07-2010 Preeti/ds