Can a Married Daughter Be Denied Ex-Gratia and Leave Encashment After Her Father’s Death? MP High Court Clarifies
Service benefits cannot be denied to married daughters, says MP High Court while allowing ex-gratia and leave encashment claims.
Madhya Pradesh High Court emphasised that retirement benefits and service-related dues form part of constitutional and statutory rights and cannot be denied arbitrarily.
The order arose from a writ petition in Prasanna Namdev (Soni) v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition No. 37546 of 2024 (decided on 18 February 2026), challenging the denial of ex-gratia and leave encashment to a married daughter after the death of her father, who was a government employee. The Court ruled that such a denial amounted to discrimination and lacked legal justification.
Background of the Case
The case involved a writ petition filed by Prasanna Namdev (Soni) challenging orders dated 24 May 2024 and 26 October 2024, by which the authorities denied her ex-gratia and leave encashment benefits after the death of her father.
The petitioner’s father, Late Prabhat Kumar Namdev, was employed as a Driver in the District Court, Narsinghpur, under the administrative control of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. He died during service on 9 May 2024.
Initially, the deceased employee had nominated his wife as the beneficiary of service benefits. However, after his wife predeceased him, he changed the nomination and recorded his daughter, the petitioner, as nominee in the official service records on 26 July 2016.
After her father’s death, the petitioner applied for settlement of all service benefits, including:
- General Provident Fund (GPF)
- Group Insurance
- Leave encashment
- Ex-gratia payment
- Other dues
The authorities accepted her nomination and released:
- GPF amount
- Group Insurance benefits
She was also granted a compassionate appointment, further recognising her status as a legal heir. However, her claims for ex-gratia and leave encashment were rejected solely on the ground that she was a married daughter.
Issues
The principal issues before the Madhya Pradesh High Court were:
- Whether a married daughter can be denied ex-gratia payment after the death of a government employee.
- Whether leave encashment can be refused to a married daughter nominee.
- Whether such denial violates constitutional principles of equality.
- Whether nomination and recognition as legal heir entitle the petitioner to service benefits.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the rejection orders were:
- Arbitrary
- Illegal
- Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
It was contended that:
- The deceased employee had duly nominated the petitioner.
- Authorities had already recognised her nominee status.
- Other benefits were paid to her.
- Compassionate appointment had been granted.
Therefore, denial of ex-gratia and leave encashment was unjustified. The petitioner emphasised that she was the only surviving legal heir, and exclusion based on marital status had no rational basis.
Reliance was placed on the Larger Bench decision in Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. PoorvaKshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., where exclusion of married daughters from service benefits was held unconstitutional.
It was argued that a daughter remains part of her parental family even after marriage and cannot be treated differently solely because of marital status.
Respondents’ Arguments
The respondents defended the rejection orders and argued:
- The decision was based on applicable rules and policies.
- Nomination alone does not create entitlement.
- Ex-gratia benefits were governed by policy provisions.
- Married daughters were not included in the eligible category.
The respondents further argued that:
- There was no violation of Article 14.
- The Meenakshi Dubey judgment was distinguishable.
Therefore, the petition deserved dismissal.
Married Daughter and Equality
The Court relied heavily on constitutional principles and earlier judicial precedents. Referring to Meenakshi Dubey, the Court reiterated that exclusion of married daughters from service benefits violates:
Article 14 – Equality before law
Article 16 – Equal opportunity
Article 39(a) – Right to livelihood
The Court held that:
- A woman remains part of her parental family even after marriage.
- Marital status cannot justify discrimination.
The petitioner was:
- Nominee
- Legal heir
- Recognized beneficiary
Hence denial was unjustified.
Leave Encashment as a Constitutional Right
The Court emphasised that leave encashment is not a discretionary payment.
It held that:
- Leave encashment is a statutory right.
- Accumulated leave becomes property of the employee.
- It cannot be denied arbitrarily.
The Court observed that pensionary and retiral benefits are protected under Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects property rights.
The Court relied on Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi v. State of M.P. (2013) to hold that retiral dues constitute property.
Therefore, denial of leave encashment without legal authority was unconstitutional.
Interpretation of Ex-Gratia Rules
The respondents relied on a 1972 Government Notification, which provided priority for ex-gratia payment:
- Husband or wife
- Eldest son
- Eldest unmarried daughter
The Court carefully examined the notification and held that:
- The notification did not expressly exclude married daughters.
- It only provided priority among legal heirs.
- It did not address situations where a married daughter is the only heir.
The Court interpreted the rule purposively and concluded:
- Married daughters are not barred.
- The rule cannot be used to deny benefits where no other heir exists.
Nature and Purpose of Ex-Gratia Payment
The Court explained the nature of ex-gratia payments.
It was observed that:
- Ex-gratia is not a mandatory statutory benefit.
- It is discretionary.
- It is intended to provide immediate financial relief.
The Court noted that ex-gratia is typically paid immediately after death to help with funeral expenses and family needs. Therefore, denying ex-gratia to a married daughter would defeat the purpose of such payments.
Final Order
The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that:
The ex-gratia and leave encashment of the deceased employee ought to be paid his legal heirs without differential that she is married or not.
The Court directed the authorities to:
- Pay ex-gratia and leave encashment
- Within 60 days of the order.
No costs were imposed.
Conclusion
The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s ruling in Prasanna Namdev v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2026) is a significant step toward gender equality in service benefits.
The Court made it clear that a married daughter cannot be denied ex-gratia or leave encashment solely because of her marital status. The order reinforces that retirement benefits are constitutional rights and must be distributed fairly among legal heirs.
By directing payment of benefits to the petitioner, the Court ensured that administrative authorities cannot rely on outdated interpretations to deny legitimate claims.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams
