[2026:RJ-JP:822] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6056/2011 Jaimal Ram Saini S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram Saini, aged about 58 years, by profession Teacher, R/o Babai, Tehsil: Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner. 3. The Director, Directorate of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 4. The District Collector, Jhunjhunu. 5. The Treasury Officer, Jhunjhunu, Court Campus, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhil Simlote For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy. G.C. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 09/01/2026 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged recovery of the alleged housing loan amount taken by the petitioner in the year 1994, which is sought to be recovered vide notices/letters dated 11.11.2009, 24.12.2009 & 29.04.2010. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of having requirement, the petitioner who was holding the post of ‘Teacher’ in Education Department, availed housing loan of Rs.90,000/- on 15.04.1994. Recovery of housing loan was being made through equal monthly installments from regular salary of the petitioner, where every month Rs.520/- were deducted against the principal amount and Rs.458/- against the interest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thus in 176 different installments of Rs.978/- each from July, 1994 [2026:RJ-JP:822] (2 of 2) [CW-6056/2011] to February, 2009, total Rs.1,72,128/- have already been paid by the petitioner against the housing loan of Rs.90,000/-. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that at the relevant time when loan was taken by the petitioner the rate of interest was quite higher at 11.5% per month, which reduced drastically in the year 2004 to 8.25% per annum. However, instead of applying the reduced interest rate, the respondents are calculating the amount from the original rate of interest, for which they are not entitled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that thus, in quite arbitrary manner, the respondents are demanding Rs.64,124/- from the petitioner without there being any justification. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a matter of calculation and, in case, any representation is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be considered by the Senior Accounts Officer of the respondent-Department. 7. In the light of above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall submit a representation along with all the supporting documents before the Senior Accounts Officer of the respondent-Department, who shall consider the representation and pass a speaking order and action, if any, shall be taken only after decision of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner. The representation be decided within a period of three months from the date of its receipt along with certified copy of this order. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/32