Murlidhar Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 4207 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Murlidhar Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:13074]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5882/2026

Murlidhar Sharma S/o Shri Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 57
Years, R/o 129, Rasala Road, Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Dept. Of
         Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.       The    Secretary       Finance       (Bedget),          Government    Of
         Rajasthan, Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3.       The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
4.       The Joint Director, School Education, Jodhpur Range,
         Jodhpur.
5.       The Treasury Officer (Rural), Jodhpur.
6.       The Sub Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury Luni, District
         Jodhpur.
7.       The Sub Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury Bilara, District
         Jodhpur.
8.       The Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Bhatiyanadi, Block
         Jodhpur City, Jodhpur.
9.       The Principal, Mahatma Gandhi Govt. School, Vinaykiya,
         Jodhpur City, Jodhpur.
10.      The Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Nandwan, Block Luni,
         Jodhpur.
11.      The Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Dhandia Kalla, Block
         Luni, Jodhpur.
12.      The Principal, Govt. Sr. Sec. School, Ramasani, Block
         Bilara, Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :   Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Jodha
                                Mr. Himmat Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)           :



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:36:23 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13074] (2 of 2) [CW-5882/2026]

18/03/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondents, by way of the impugned orders dated 02.12.2025,

19.11.2025, 10.01.2026, 12.01.2026, 15.01.2026 and 27.01.2026

have directed recovery of House Rent Allowance (HRA) and City

Compensatory Allowance (CCA), alleging that the same were paid

in excess to the petitioner. He further submit that the petitioner

has neither made any misrepresentation nor committed any fraud;

therefore, the impugned orders directing recovery are arbitrary

and unjust.

2. The matter requires consideration.

3. Issue notice to the respondents. Issue notice of the stay

application also, returnable within a period of four weeks.

4. In the meanwhile and until the next date, no recovery shall

be effected from the petitioner in pursuance of impugned orders

dated 02.12.2025 (Annex.1), 19.11.2025, 10.01.2026,

12.01.2026, 15.01.2026 and 27.01.2026 (Annex-5 to 9).

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J 86-JatinS/-

(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 07:36:23 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)