[2025:RJ-JP:29437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1068/2025 Naval Singh Son Of Shri Charan Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of Nagla Terahiyan, Ucchain, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through The General Manager, West-Central Railway, Jabalpur (Mp). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Shukla, Advocate assisted by Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Chaturvedi, Advocate assisted by Ms. Nandini Chaturvedi, Advocate. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/08/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 10.09.2024 passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench at Jaipur (‘hereinafter to be referred as ‘Tribunal’) by which the application submitted by the petitioner for premature release of the amount deposited in the fixed deposit in pursuance of the judgment dated 22.07.2024 passed by the Tribunal has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an accident, an arm of the petitioner was imputed for which a claim petition was submitted by him before the Tribunal and the same was allowed vide judgment dated 22.07.2024 and the respondents were directed to pay the compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9%. per annum. Counsel submits that while passing the aforesaid judgment, the [2025:RJ-JP:29437] (2 of 3) [CW-1068/2025] Tribunal passed a direction to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in the petitioner’s saving bank account and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.6,20,000/- was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit scheme of a nationalised bank and a direction was further issued to pay the interest accrued thereon to be credited in the saving bank account of the petitioner. 3. Counsel submits that the financial as well as the domestic condition of the house of the petitioner is crucial and critical. The house of the petitioner is lying in a dilapidated condition; therefore, the petitioner had desired to purchase land for rehabilitation of his family. Counsel submits that the aforesaid application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected by the Tribunal by passing the order impugned. Counsel submits that the FDR would mature in the month of November, 2025 and looking to the current monsoon season, appropriate order is to be passed in favour of the petitioner and his family. 4. Per contra, counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the amount has been deposited in the bank for the welfare of the petitioner as well as his family. Counsel submits that when an enquiry was conducted at the level of the respondent-department, it was found that the petitioner has not deposited two years’ school fee of the children that is why a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. Counsel submits that in case the entire amount deposited in the fixed deposit is allowed to be disbursed in favour of the petitioner, there are chances that the petitioner may misuse the aforesaid amount and his family would suffer. Hence, the [2025:RJ-JP:29437] (3 of 3) [CW-1068/2025] Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the prayer of premature release of FDR in his favour and interference of the Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This fact is not in dispute that the claim petition submitted by the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 22.07.2024 and a lump sum compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- was awarded in his favour, out of which Rs.1,00,000/- was disbursed to the petitioner and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.6,20,000/- was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit in favour of the petitioner in a nationalised bank. This fact is also not in dispute that the order for retaining the aforesaid amount was confined for a period of three years and the FDR would mature in the month of November, 2025 of this year. 7. This Court has seen the photographs filed along with the writ petition showing the dilapidated condition of the house of the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petitioner is not in a position even to pay the school fee of the children and the amount of FDR is going to mature in the next three months, this Court deems it just and proper to allow this petition by quashing the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to issue directions to the concerned bank for release of the balance amount in favour of the petitioner forthwith. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Tushar/41