Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14883 (RAJ)

JITENDER SINGH S/O SHRI SHIVRAM SIONGH v. UNION OF INDIA

CW/6168/2025 · 2025-04-28

Anil Kumar Upman

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:17967] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6168/2025 Jitender Singh S/o Shri Shivram Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Rudra Nagar Colony, Near Director of Mustard Research Centre, Sevar Khurd, District Bharatpur Rajasthan. ----Petitioner/Applicant Versus Union Of India, Through The General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur (MP). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vaibhav Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Adv., for Union of India. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/04/2025 The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-applicant seeking direction for the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench for premature release of the award amount of Rs.6,48,000/- in his favour. Vide judgment/award dated 19.3.2024, learned Railway Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.7,20,000/- in favour of the claimant-petitioner. Rs. 72000/- was directed to be paid to the applicant immediately whereas, remaining amount i.e. Rs.6,48,000/- was directed to be invested in the fixed deposit scheme of a nationalized bank for a period of three years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to the train accident, the petitioner suffered amputation of right leg three inches below knee, amputation of three fingers of left foot and [2025:RJ-JP:17967] (2 of 2) [CW-6168/2025] amputation of half foot of the left leg, which is evident from the photographs of the petitioner annexed with this writ petition. He further submits that the petitioner has become physically handicapped/disabled person. He has no other source of income and as such, he is facing great financial hardship. He thus, prays that the instant writ petition may be allowed and the FD of Rs. 6,48,000/- may be released in his favour forthwith. Learned counsel for the respondent oppose the prayer made in the writ petition. He however does not dispute the physical disabilities suffered by the petitioner. After having heard and considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material available on record, in the interest of justice, I deem it just and proper to accept the prayer of the petitioner in part. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed and it is directed that out of the FDR of Rs.6,48,000/-, Rs. 3,00,000/- may be released in favour of the petitioner forthwith and remaining FDR to be released in favour of the petitioner as per its date of maturity in terms of order of learned Tribunal. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/73