In a significant ruling for gender equality and the rights of legal heirs, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter cannot be denied ex-gratia and leave encashment benefits arising from her father’s service. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, emphasized that such benefits must be paid to legal heirs without differentiation based on their marital status.
The Writ Petition (No. 37546 of 2024) was filed by Prasanna Namdev (Soni), challenging orders passed by the respondents on May 24, 2024, and October 26, 2024. These orders denied her the payment of ex-gratia and leave encashment following the death of her father, a government employee, on the grounds that she was a married daughter. The Court allowed the petition, directing the respondents to release the payments within 60 days.
Background
The petitioner’s father, Late Prabhat Kumar Namdev, served as a Driver at the District Court, Narsinghpur, under the administrative control of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He passed away on May 9, 2024, during his service tenure. Having lost his wife previously, he had recorded the petitioner as his nominee in his official service records on July 26, 2016.
Following his demise, the respondents released the GPF and Group Insurance Scheme amounts to the petitioner, acknowledging her as the valid nominee. However, her claims for ex-gratia and leave encashment were rejected by the respondents solely because of her status as a married daughter.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner, Shri Durgesh Kumar Singrore, argued that the denial was arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. He contended that once the petitioner was accepted as the nominee and legal heir for other benefits, there was no legal justification for denying ex-gratia and leave encashment. He relied on the Larger Bench decision in Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., which held that excluding a married daughter from service benefits is unconstitutional.
The respondents, represented by Shri Shobhitaditya, maintained that the orders were in accordance with prevailing policy and government notifications. They argued that a married daughter is not covered within the eligible category for ex-gratia and that mere nomination does not confer an absolute right to all service benefits.
Court’s Analysis
The Court referred to the precedent set in Meenakshi Dubey (supra), noting that:
“A woman citizen cannot be excluded for any appointment on compassionate basis on the ground of sex alone. The daughter even after marriage remains part of the family and she could not be treated as not belonging to her father’s family.”
Regarding leave encashment, the Court observed that it is a statutory right and “property” under Article 300-A of the Constitution. Citing Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi v. State of M.P. (2013), the Bench noted:
“The retiral dues are also recognized as property under the Article 300-A of the Constitution. A person can be deprived from the property only in accordance with law made in this regard.”
Examining the Madhya Pradesh Government notification dated November 14, 1972, regarding ex-gratia, the Court clarified that while the rules set a priority (e.g., eldest son, then eldest unmarried daughter), they do not debar a married daughter, especially when she is the only legal heir.
The Bench further observed:
“The purpose of ex gratia is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee… ex gratia paid to the employee after his death immediately… shows that the amount is for performing the funeral ceremony of the employee, hence, it cannot be denied on the ground that the married daughter cannot claim it.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that ex-gratia and leave encashment must be paid to legal heirs regardless of whether a daughter is married. The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to pay the claimed amounts to the petitioner within 60 days from the receipt of the order.
- Case Title: Prasanna Namdev (Soni) Versus The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others
- Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 37546 of 2024
