Smt Jayanti Devi And Ors. vs Union Of India

Court
Delhi High Court

$~59
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of Decision: 30 July 2026
# CNR No . DLHC010315792026
+ W.P.(C) 9947/2026
SMT JAYANTI DEVI AND ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Manindra Dubey and Mr.
Sudhakar Dubey, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Neeraj Dubey, CGSC with Ms.
Akanksha Suman (GP), Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the
th
impugned order dated 24 February, 2026, passed by the Railway Claims
Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi.
2. In terms of the impugned order, the Railway Claims Tribunal has
awarded compensation of Rs.8 lakhs to the petitioners. However, it has been
directed that only 10% of the amount awarded shall be paid to the petitioners
and the remaining amount shall be kept in FDRs for a period of three (3)
years.
3. Issue Notice.
4. Notice is accepted by counsel for the respondent/Railways.
5. Since the issue involved in the present petition is only legal, with the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.08.2026
18:37:19
W.P.(C) 9947/2026 Page 1 of 6

consent of counsel, the present writ petition is taken up for disposal at this
stage.
6. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows:
6.1. The husband of petitioner no.1 suffered fatal injuries in an untoward
th
railway incident which occurred on 14 May, 2013 at Hazrat Nizamuddin
th
Railway Station and succumbed to the said injuries on 15 May, 2013.

6.2. The petitioners filed a claim application bearing No. OA/ll/U/52/2014
before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi, which came to
th
be dismissed on 9 February, 2017.
6.3. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order in FAO
th
No.331/2017, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 7
January, 2026 and the matter was sent back to the Railway Claims Tribunal
for deciding the compensation amounts with a direction to disburse the same
within two (2) weeks.
6.4. Pursuant thereto, the Railway Claims Tribunal passed an order,
granting Rs.8 lakhs as the compensation amount however, it was directed
that only 10% of the amount would be released to the petitioners and the rest
amounts will be kept in a fixed deposit for 3 years.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition has
been filed.
8. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in urgent
requirement of funds and the entire amount should be released to them. He
has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph 12 of the order passed by
th
this Court on 7 January, 2026 in FAO 331/2017 whereby a direction was
issued that the compensation be disbursed to the petitioners within two (2)
weeks. Paragraph 12 of the said order is set out below:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.08.2026
18:37:19
W.P.(C) 9947/2026 Page 2 of 6

9. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on order passed by
th
the Allahabad High Court on 17 March 2026 in Writ-C No.98985 of 2026
titled “ Smt. Prema v. Union of India” in similar circumstances.
10. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that in terms
of the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation)
Amendment Rules, 2020 (hereinafter ‘Amendment Rules’), the Tribunal has
the discretion to require deposit of part of the compensation in annuity/fixed
deposit or other suitable mode.
11. I have heard counsel for the parties.
12. To begin with, a reference may be made to Rules 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4.1 of
the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules, 1990
as inserted by the Amendment Rules, which are set out below:
“2. In the Railway Accidents and Untoward Incidents (Compensation) Rules,
1990, after rule 4, the following rule shall be inserted, namely: -
“5. MODE OF PAYMENT.—
5.1 THE TRIBUNAL MAY , IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE SUM
AWARDED TO THE CLAIMANT, HAVING DUE REGARD TO THE
ILLITERACY OR OTHER DISABLING FACTORS IMPAIRING THE
JUDICIOUS USE OF SUCH SUM , ISSUE DIRECTIONS FOR
DISBURSING THE AWARD IN TERMS OF ANNUITIES, FIXED DEPOSITS
OR OTHER SUITABLE MODE AS SHALL SUBSERVE JUSTICE .
5.2 …
5.3 Nothing in this rule shall limit the power of the Tribunal to make
modifications of the mode of disbursal for reasons to be stated in writing
depending on the exigencies requiring liquidation of any corpus created for
annuity or premature closure of fixed deposit , for the benefit of the claimant .
…
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.08.2026
18:37:19
W.P.(C) 9947/2026 Page 3 of 6

5.4.1 Examination of the Claimant(s) before passing of the award
(i) RCT shall, before or at the time of passing of the award, examine the
claimant(s) to ascertain their financial condition/ needs, mode of
disbursement and amount to be kept in fixed deposit.
(ii)…
(iii)…

5.4.2 DEPOSIT OF THE AWARD AMOUNT The RCT shall direct the
Railways to deposit the amount awarded with the Registrar or RCT within a
period of 30 days from the date of communication of the award. At the time of
passing the award, RCT shall examine whether the Claimant(s) are entitled to
exemption of deduction of TDS and if so, the Claimant(s) shall submit Form
15G or Form 15H (for senior citizen) to the Presenting Officer of the Railways
(as applicable under sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Railway Claims
Tribunal Act, 1987) so that no TDS is deducted.”
[Emphasis supplied.]

13. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would show that
though the Railway Claims Tribunal is vested with the discretion to direct
disbursement of the awarded compensation by way of annuities, fixed
deposits or any other suitable mode, such discretion is neither absolute nor
mechanical. Rule 5.1 makes it evident that the power is to be exercised
having due regard to the illiteracy or other disabling factors impairing the
judicious use of the compensation amount and only where such mode of
disbursement would subserve the ends of justice. Rule 5.3 further mandates
that any modification in the mode of disbursement must be supported by
reasons recorded in writing and should operate for the benefit of the
claimant. Furthermore, Rule 5.4.1 obligates the Tribunal to examine the
financial condition, financial requirements and appropriate mode of
disbursement in respect of the claimant before determining the amount, if
any, that deserves to be retained in fixed deposits. Thus, the statutory
scheme contemplates an individualized exercise of judicial discretion
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.08.2026
18:37:19
W.P.(C) 9947/2026 Page 4 of 6

founded on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Rules do not
envisage a uniform or inflexible practice of directing that a fixed percentage
of the awarded compensation be retained in fixed deposits irrespective of the
claimant's individual circumstances.
14. In the present case, the Tribunal has directed release of only 10% of
the awarded compensation while directing that the remaining amount be
kept in fixed deposits for a period of three years. However, the impugned
order neither records any finding with regard to the financial condition or
financial requirements of the petitioners nor identifies any illiteracy or other
disabling factor warranting protection of the compensation amount. There is
also no discussion as to why retention of 90% of the awarded compensation
would be for the benefit of the petitioners. The discretion vested in the
Tribunal has thus been exercised mechanically, without undertaking the
enquiry mandated under Rule 5.4.1 and without recording the reasons
contemplated under Rule 5.3.
15. The petitioners have expressed immediate and urgent requirement of
the funds. To be noted, the incident in the present case occurred in the year
2013 and the petitioners have been deprived of the compensation for all
these years. The petitioners have been pursuing the claim for more than
th
twelve years. This Court, while allowing FAO No.331/2017 on 7 January,
2026, had directed that the compensation be disbursed to the petitioners
within two weeks. In these facts and circumstances, the direction to release
only 10% of the awarded amount, without any individualised assessment or
reasons, defeats the very object of the award of compensation and cannot be
sustained.
16. In Smt. Prema v. Union of India (supra), the claim arose out of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.08.2026
18:37:19
W.P.(C) 9947/2026 Page 5 of 6

death of the husband of petitioner no.1 in a railway accident. The Railway
Claims Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs.8 lakhs however, it
directed release of only Rs.80,000/- to the claimants and the balance amount
was to be kept in fixed deposits for a period of three years. The Allahabad
High Court has held that the principle of the compensation amount being
released partially and the balance invested in fixed deposit cannot be applied
as a rule of thumb in all cases. The discretion has to be applied in the
individual case and the facts and circumstances of the case. It was held that
the principle invoked by the Tribunal must be blended with practicality so as
to release a reasonable amount, keeping in mind the overall circumstances of
the case.
17. In the present case, as discussed above, the Tribunal has passed the
direction in a mechanical manner without assessing the needs and
requirements of the petitioners.
18. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside.
19. A direction is issued to the Registry, Railway Claims Tribunal,
Principal Bench, Delhi to release the entire amount of Rs.8 lakhs in favour
of the petitioners along with accrued interest in the manner as directed in the
impugned order.
20. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.


AMIT BANSAL, J
JULY 30, 2026
Rzu
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:VIVEK
MISHRA
Signing Date:01.08.2026
18:37:19
W.P.(C) 9947/2026 Page 6 of 6