Judgment Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. 1. This order shall dispose of the three appeals bearing F.A.O. No. 1262 of 2010 (Rameshwar Lal v. Union of India); F.A.O. No. 1263 of 2010 (Veena Kumari v. Union of India) and F.A.O. No. 2057 of 2010 (Som Parkash v. Union of India) as questions involved in these appeals are similar because the appellants in all the three appeals have prayed for release of the amount of compensation awarded in their favour which has been ordered to be deposited by the Claims Tribunal in fixed deposit in some nationalised bank. 2. In F.A.O. No. 1262 of 2010 (Rameshwar Lal v. Union of India), claim petition was filed by husband and sons of Sushila Devi (since deceased) who had died in an untoward incident occurred on 16.9.2008. The Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter for short, the Tribunal) allowed the claim petition vide its order dated 15.2.2010 and awarded Rs. 4,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent to claimants from the date of filing of claim application, i.e., 30.12.2008 till the date of the award and further at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of award till its realization. Out of the total award, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000 was ordered to be paid to the husband of the deceased and an amount of Rs. 25,000 each to the applicant Nos. 2 to 5, the minor sons of the deceased. However, a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 out of Rs. 3,00,000 awarded to the husband of the deceased was ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit in his favour in some nationalised bank for a period of two years with liberty to him to withdraw quarterly interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 was ordered to be paid to him immediately. Similarly, the amount of compensation payable to the minor sons was also ordered to be kept in a fixed deposit in their favour in some nationalised bank for a period of two years with liberty to their guardian to withdraw quarterly interest thereon. 3. In F.A.O. No. 1263 of 2010 (Veena Kumari v. Union of India), the claimants are widow and children of Sanjeev Kumar (since deceased) who is alleged to have died in an untoward incident occurred on 3.2.2008. The Tribunal allowed the claim application and awarded Rs. 3. In F.A.O. No. 1263 of 2010 (Veena Kumari v. Union of India), the claimants are widow and children of Sanjeev Kumar (since deceased) who is alleged to have died in an untoward incident occurred on 3.2.2008. The Tribunal allowed the claim application and awarded Rs. 4,00,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e., 21.5.2008 till the date of the award and further at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of award till its realization. Out of the aforesaid amount, Veena Kumari, the widow, was awarded Rs. 2,00,000 whereas the minor daughter Parul was ordered to be paid Rs. 1,00,000 and the two sons, namely, Vishnu Narula and Sandeep Kumar were ordered to get Rs. 50,000 each. Out of Rs. 2,00,000 awarded to the widow, Rs. 1,50,000 was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in her favour in some nationalised bank for a period of two years with liberty to her to withdraw quarterly interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000 was ordered to be paid to her immediately, whereas in respect of other claimants, i.e., minor children, the amount was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in their favour in some nationalised bank for a period of two years or till their attaining the age of majority. However, their mother (Veena Kumari) was given liberty to withdraw quarterly interest on said fixed deposits for the maintenance and day-to-day expenses of the minors. 4. In F.A.O. No. 2057 of 2010 (Som Parkash v. Union of India), claim petition was filed by Som Parkash, who is alleged to have received injuries in an untoward incident occurred on 5.1.2009 for which he was awarded Rs. 4,00,000 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim application, i.e., 27.4.2009 till the date of the award and further at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the award till its realization. However, out of the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in his favour in some nationalised bank for a period of two years with liberty to him to withdraw quarterly interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs. However, out of the amount of compensation of Rs. 4,00,000, a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 was ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in his favour in some nationalised bank for a period of two years with liberty to him to withdraw quarterly interest thereon and the remaining amount of Rs. 1,00,000 was ordered to be paid to him immediately, 5. Admittedly, appellants in F.A.O. No.1262 of 2010 are major (sic). In F.A.O. No. 1263 of 2010, appellant No. 1 is major and in F.A.O. No. 2057 of 2010, the sole appellant is major in accordance with the Indian Majority Act, 1875. 6. The basic feature of grievance in the aforesaid appeals is the order of the Tribunal in directing a sizeable amount of compensation awarded to the major/adults to be kept in fixed deposit for a fixed period. 7. Mr. Namit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the amount awarded by way of compensation to an adult/major cannot be ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit. He has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain v. Irfan Ahammed, 2002 ACJ 1559 (SC) and a decision of this court in the case of Asraf v.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, (2007-3) 147 PLR 692, in this regard. 8. Notice of motion was issued. 9. Mr. J.C. Marwaha, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent Union of India and submitted that the respondent has no objection if the amount awarded to the appellants is released by this court. He could not cite any judgment contrary to those rendered by the Supreme Court in H.S. Ahammed Hussain, 2002 ACJ 1559 (SC) and by this court in Asraf, (2007-3) 147 PLR 692. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. 11. It is now well settled by the Apex Court in the case of H.S. Ahammed, 2002 ACJ 1559 (SC), that the amount of compensation awarded to an adult cannot be ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit. Similarly, this court also took the view in the case of Asraf, (2007-3) 147 PLR 692, that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order for deposit of the amount of compensation in fixed deposit in case where the claimant is major. 12. Similarly, this court also took the view in the case of Asraf, (2007-3) 147 PLR 692, that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to order for deposit of the amount of compensation in fixed deposit in case where the claimant is major. 12. However, this court is flooded with such type of appeals where only prayer is for release of amount awarded to an adult, which is ordered by the Tribunal to be deposited in a fixed deposit in a nationalised bank for a fixed term. This court is constrained to observe that despite the fact that the Supreme Court, in the case of H.S. Ahammed Hussain, 2002 ACJ 1559 (SC), has authoritatively held that in case of an adult, it is not proper to order the amount of compensation to be deposited in fixed deposit and the law laid down by the Apex Court is to be followed by the courts and Tribunals all over India in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India but the Tribunal appears to be adamant in passing the same order time and again breeding unnecessary litigation, causing heavy financial loss to the poor litigants, an extra avoidable burden on this court and wasting time of this court in doing so despite a long queue of citizens waiting for justice. In this process, their queue will become longer and their misery shall multiply without any compensating benefit to the cause of justice. Therefore, while allowing these appeals, the Tribunal is directed to release the amount to the major/adults forthwith which has been ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit. The Tribunal is further advised not to pass such orders which is offending the orders passed by the Apex Court as well as by this court lest it is considered otherwise. With the aforesaid directions, these appeals are disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh.