Hon’ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Sri Rahul Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is being decided at the admission stage itself.

3. By way of present writ petition petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.6.2013 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar, by which a recovery order was issued for recovering a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- as arrears of land revenue.

4. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Dr. Dwijendra Nath Dubey was Principal in Tilak Inter College Bansi, Siddharth Nagar (hereinafter referred to as the, ‘College’). During the course of service, husband of the petitioner died on 18.6.2012 and petitioner was entitled for post death dues, but the same was not paid to her. Therefore, she had no option but to file Writ-A No. 10004 of 2013 (Durgawati Dubey v. State of U.P. Thru Secy and others), which was disposed of on 22.2.2013 with a direction to respondent No. 3 to examine the claim of petitioner and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 22.2.2013, instead of making payment, impugned order dated 10.6.2013 has been passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools only on the behest of Manager after the death of husband of petitioner without appreciating this fact that neither any inquiry proceeding can be initiated against a dead person nor any recovery order can be issued. It is further stated that there is no provision under U.P. Intermediate Education Act or the Regulations or any other law for recovery of alleged embezzled amount from a dead employee and in present case, husband of petitioner as arrears of land revenue from the property of petitioner or her late husband. It is specific argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that during the life time of husband of petitioner, no inquiry has been initiated against him neither any order of recovery has been passed. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Gulam Gausul Azam and others v. State of U.P. and others and another judgment in the matter of Onkar Singh Verma v. State of U.P. and others which provides that neither any disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against a dead person nor any amount can be recovered.

6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State has placed reliance on Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit and stated that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- was allocated to the College for construction of laboratory and furniture on 15.6.2011 and the husband of the petitioner was posted as Principal in the said College. By means of letter dated 4.2.2013, Manager of the College was directed to produce the consumption/expenditure certificate in the office of Project Director, District Rural Development Agency. He has further submitted that pursuant thereto the District Inspector of Schools, Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 19.3.2013 directed the Manager of the Institution to immediately produce the consumption/expenditure certificate in the office, so that higher Authorities may be made aware about the facts and status. In Paragraph No. 10 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that amount of grant under MLA fund was misappropriated, misused, embezzled and expended in personal use by the husband of the petitioner and he was found guilty of losses, therefore, the aforesaid amount has rightly been directed to be recovered.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has also filed counter-affidavit and it is contended that vide order dated 27.6.2011, a fund of Rs. 2,00,