APHC010573292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2935/2025 Between: 1. SHAIK MOHAMMAD JAFAR ALI (DIED), A 2. RAFIKUNNISA, W/O. LATE SHAIKMAHAMMADJAFAR ALI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC . HOUSEWIFE R/O. EGUVAKURAVANKA VILLAGE PONNETIPALEM POST MADANAPALLEMANDAL ,CHITTOOR DISTIRCT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. UNION OF INDIA, rep. By its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to allow the revision by setting aside the order dated 27-09-2022 passed lA. No. 88 of 2021 in OAII ( u) 294 of 2011 the Railway Claims Tribunal Amaravathi Bench, at Guntur by all the petition of the petitioner as prayed before the Tribunal or to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1031 days in filing of the appeal, and pass 2 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. GEETHA MADHURI N S Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 3 The Court made the following Order: The 2nd petitioner herein is the 2nd applicant in OA/II(u)/294/2011 filed for compensation to be paid to the applicants on account of the death of their son in an untoward incident. During pendency of this application, the 1st applicant therein, who was the husband of the 2nd petitioner herein has passed away, and his name was deleted from the application. The claim was disposed of by the Railway Claims Tribunal, Amavarathi by an order, dated 01.08.2019. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Amaravathi, while granting compensation to the 2nd petitioner, gave certain directions in relation to the manner in which the said compensation is to be disbursed to her. Essentially, a direction was given for depositing the compensation in 72 equal monthly term deposits for a period of 1 to 72 months in the ascending order. So, the 2nd petitioner would get compensation on monthly basis. 2. The 2nd petitioner, subsequently moved an application for withdrawing the entire fixed deposit amount on the ground that all her family members have passed away and she is in urgent need of medical assistance and also financial assistance. 3. The Tribunal, by an order dated 27.09.2022 had directed to release for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and to increase the monthly annuity installment from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. 4. Aggrieved by this order, the 2nd petitioner has moved this Court by way of the present revision petition. No explanation has been given as to why 4 revision petitioner has moved after a period of three (3) years since the date of impugned order. 5 The monthly annuity being paid to the 2nd petitioner at an increase of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- per month. In that view of the matter, it is not clear as to whether any amounts remain to be paid to the 2nd petitioner. 6. In the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to direct the respondent to release the remaining amount to the petitioner, if any further amounts remain available for disbursement. The said disbursal shall take place within two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 07.11.2025 KA/KSS 5 314 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2935/2025 Date: 07.11.2025 KA/KSS