Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Married Daughter’s Right To Ex-Gratia And Leave Encashment

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that a married daughter cannot be denied ex-gratia payment and leave encashment of her deceased father solely on the ground of her marital status, holding that such exclusion is discriminatory and violative of constitutional guarantees.

The Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal allowed a writ petition filed by Prasanna Namdev, directing the authorities to release the pending dues within 60 days.

The petitioner’s father, Late Prabhat Kumar Namdev, was employed as a Driver at the District Court, Narsinghpur, under the administrative control of the High Court. He passed away on May 9, 2024, while still in service. During his lifetime, he had nominated his daughter in the official service records after his wife predeceased him. Following his death, the petitioner applied for settlement of all service and retiral benefits, including General Provident Fund (GPF), group insurance, ex-gratia payment and leave encashment.

While the authorities released the GPF and group insurance amounts and even granted compassionate appointment to the petitioner, her claim for ex-gratia and leave encashment was rejected through orders dated May 24, 2024 and October 26, 2024. The sole ground cited was that she was a married daughter and therefore not eligible under the applicable policy.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Durgesh Kumar Singrore argued that once the authorities had recognized her as the valid nominee and legal heir for other service benefits, there was no lawful basis to deny the remaining dues. He submitted that such exclusion amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. On the other hand, Advocate Shobhitaditya, representing the respondents, contended that ex-gratia is governed by policy and that a married daughter does not fall within the eligible category.

The bench examined the Larger Bench decision in Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. PoorvaKshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., which had held that exclusion of a married daughter from compassionate appointment is unconstitutional. Referring to that precedent, the court observed that “a woman citizen cannot be excluded… on the ground of sex alone” and that “the daughter even after marriage remains part of the family”.

The court further held that leave encashment is not a bounty but a statutory and constitutional right. It noted that depriving an employee or his legal heir of leave encashment would violate Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property. The bench observed that “the right to leave encashment is a statutory right which cannot be forfeited” and that retiral dues are recognized as property that cannot be withheld without authority of law.

Dealing specifically with the State’s 1972 notification governing ex-gratia payment, the court clarified that the provision does not expressly debar a married daughter. The rule merely lays down an order of priority to avoid disputes among multiple heirs. The judges reasoned that where a married daughter is the only legal heir, she cannot be excluded. The court remarked that ex-gratia, though discretionary in nature, is meant to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee and “cannot be denied on the ground that the married daughter cannot claim it”.

In a significant observation, the bench stated 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,” reinforcing the constitutional commitment to equality.

Allowing the petition, the court directed the respondents to release the ex-gratia and leave encashment amounts within 60 days from receipt of the order, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Prasanna Namdev (Soni) v. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: February 18, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal