Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This contempt petition is brought forth by the petitioner seeking to take action against the respondent for the disobedience of the orders of this Court. 2. The affidavit in support of the petition is perused and counter affidavit also. 3. The admitted facts are: By an order dated 17. 2006, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Deputy Official Liquidator, Chennai, to the post of the Deputy Director (Inspection), Calcutta, against the vacant post and in the resultant vacancy, consequently the fourth respondent was posted as Deputy Official Liquidator, Madras, from the post he was holding at Bangalore. The said order was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.531 of 2006 which was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, by an order dated 111. 2006, whereby the order of the respondents 1 to 3 was set aside on the ground of malafide. Aggrieved by the order, the respondents 1 to 3 filed WP No.18920 of 2007. An order came to be passed on 25. 2007, wherein interim stay was granted. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner continued to remain in the post of the Deputy Official Liquidator, and therefore, the order of interim stay was modified on 6. 2007, to the effect that the status quo should be maintained pending further orders. While the matter stood thus, since the order was not complied with, the petitioner filed contempt application No.1803/07. In the meanwhile, the respondents 1 to 3 took the matter by way of Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. While issuing notice in that matter, the Honourable Supreme Court only stayed partly in respect of the observations made by this Court, and there was no stay in respect of the other part. While the matter stood thus, the grievance of the petitioner is that while it was not stayed in respect of the transfer part, the fourth respondent should have been transferred, and the order that was originally passed, must be stayed. The contempt petition came up for orders on 20.12.2007. The Counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the order would be complied with and accordingly, that contempt petition was also closed. Thereafter, by an order dated 212. The contempt petition came up for orders on 20.12.2007. The Counsel for the respondents informed the Court that the order would be complied with and accordingly, that contempt petition was also closed. Thereafter, by an order dated 212. 2007, the fourth respondent who should have been posted to some other place since there is only one post of Deputy Official Liquidator in Chennai, issued office orders allotting certain works to the petitioner. Under the circumstances, this contempt petition has been brought forth. 4. The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that so long as the fourth respondent remained to continue at Madras, it is quite clear that the order of this Court was not complied with; that apart from that, so long as the fourth respondent is retained to see that the petitioner does not get the opportunity to discharge his duties as the Deputy Official Liquidator at Madras, the action of the fourth respondent is one which deserves to be condemned, and under the circumstances, action has got to be taken. 5. A counter affidavit is filed, and the learned Additional Solicitor General is heard. According to him, the fourth respondent has actually been transferred from Madras on promotion as JD RD(NR), Noida, and the order of transfer on promotion has been served upon him, and he has already been relieved, and under the circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner is baseless. 6. As could be seen above, the only contention on which this petition is brought forth, is that so long as the fourth respondent is retained in Madras, the petitioner could not discharge his duties as Deputy Official Liquidator, and that part of the order originally granted by this Court, was not stayed by the Supreme Court. But, at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the fourth respondent, as per the undertaking given by the respondents 1 to 3 before this Court, was already transferred to Noida on promotion as JD, RD(NR). In such circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Solicitor General, is baseless. The statement of the learned Additional Solicitor General is recorded. Hence, no further action is needed. Accordingly, this contempt petition is disposed of.