The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a married daughter is entitled to receive leave encashment and ex gratia payments if she is the sole legal heir of a deceased employee.
A Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal examined the State notification dated November 14, 1972. The Court found that the notification does not exclude a married daughter. It clarified that the policy primarily addresses disputes among multiple heirs. Where no heir exists other than a married daughter, authorities cannot deny her the ex gratia amount.
The Court observed:
“The above notification does not debar the married daughter. The above rule is made to resolve the controversy between the legal heirs of the deceased… the notification is silent as to if there are no heirs other than a married daughter, then who will receive the ex-gratia. Meaning thereby, the married daughter is not excluded if she is the only legal heir of the deceased.”
Background
The petitioner, daughter of a driver employed in the District Court, Narsinghpur, challenged orders denying her ex gratia and leave encashment.
Her father died in service on May 9, 2024. During his lifetime, he nominated his wife for service benefits. She predeceased him. He later changed the nomination in the service record and named his daughter.
After his death, the petitioner sought settlement of service dues. Authorities released GPF and amounts under the Karmchari Group Insurance Scheme. However, they rejected her claim for ex gratia and leave encashment on the ground that she was a married daughter.
Submissions Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that authorities denied benefits solely because she was married. He contended that such denial was arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The respondents argued that nomination alone does not confer an absolute right to all service benefits. They claimed that the policy did not include married daughters within the eligible category.
Court’s Findings
The High Court relied on Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd. It reiterated that a daughter does not cease to belong to her father’s family after marriage. Authorities cannot treat her as outside the family for service benefits.
On leave encashment, the Court held:
“Depriving an employee of leave encashment is violative of Article 300A of The Indian Constitution… The right to leave encashment is a statutory right which cannot be forfeited by explicit statutory provision.”
The Court stressed that leave encashment accrues as a right when an employee chooses to accumulate earned leave. An employer cannot deny that right without statutory backing.
The Bench further held that rights relating to leave encashment, pension, and gratuity survive the employee’s death. Death does not extinguish accrued rights.
While interpreting the 1972 notification, the Court clarified that it regulates entitlement where multiple heirs exist. It does not bar a married daughter who stands as the sole legal heir.
The Court also explained the purpose of ex gratia payments:
“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.”
Directions
The Court allowed the petition. It held that the petitioner is entitled to ex gratia and leave encashment. The Bench directed the respondents to release the amounts within 60 days.
Case Title: Prasanna Namdev (Soni) v High Court of MP
For Petitioner: Advocate Durgesh Kumar Singrore
For Respondent: Advocate Shobhitaditya
