FAO No. 4244 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 4244 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.2.2011 Smt. Usha Sharma ... Appellant vs Union of India .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Namit Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, for the respondent. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 9.10.2009 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short, `the Tribunal'), whereby ` 2,50,000/- out of the share of compensation of appellant no.1 has been ordered to be deposited in a bank in FDR for three years. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is aggrieved against the impugned award in respect of order of deposit of compensation of her share in the Nationalised Bank by way of FDR. She submitted that appellant is the widow of the deceased. She had borrowed some amount for the expenses incurred during the course of treatment of her husband. She is now in need of money so that she can clear the said loan amount. The order of deposit of her share of compensation in bank is illegal in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in H. S. Ahammed Hussain vs Irfan Ahammed, 2002(3) RCR (Civil) 563 and this Court in FAO No. 1262 of 2010—Rameshwar Lal and others vs Union of India, decided on 11.5.2010, wherein it has been opined that the amount payable to an adult cannot be directed to be kept in a fixed deposit. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, could not dispute the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments. FAO No. 4244 of 2010 -2- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. Keeping in view the enunciation of law as referred to above, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation coming to the share of the appellant, who is major, shall be paid to her in cash at her option instead of keeping the same deposited in the bank. Disposed of. 11.2.2011 (Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge