Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by a married daughter seeking service dues of her father, the Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal*, JJ., allowed the petition, holding that the ex gratia and leave encashment of the deceased employee ought to be paid to his legal heir irrespective of her marital status.
Background
The petitioner’s father was working as a Driver at the District Court of Narsinghpur under the administrative control of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. On 9 May 2024, he died in harness, and during his lifetime, he had nominated the petitioner in his service record on 26 July 2016 after the death of his wife.
After the death of her father, the petitioner submitted applications seeking settlement of retirement and service benefits, including GPF, leave encashment, ex gratia, and other admissible dues. The respondents sanctioned and released the Karmchari Group Insurance Scheme and GPF amount in favour of the petitioner, acknowledging her as the recorded nominee.
However, her claim for ex gratia and leave encashment was rejected by the respondents vide impugned orders dated 24 May 2024 and 26 October 2024 solely on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled to receive such benefits.
Aggrieved, she filed the present petition.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court relied on Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.1, wherein a three-Judge Coordinate Bench held that the clause, to the extent it deprives a married daughter from consideration for compassionate appointment, violated Articles 14, 16, and 39(a) of the Constitution. A woman citizen cannot be excluded from any appointment on a compassionate basis on the ground of sex alone. The daughter, even after marriage, remains part of the family, and she cannot be treated as not belonging to her father’s family.
Noting the aforesaid, the Court stated that depriving an employee of leave encashment is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution, as retirement dues are recognised as property under Article 300-A. Thus, a person can only be deprived of it according to the applicable law. In this regard, the Court referred to Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi v. State of M.P., 2013 SCC OnLine MP 5111.
The Court further stated that if an employee has chosen to accumulate his earned leave to his credit, then encashment becomes his right and the employer cannot deny the employee such a right. The right to leave encashment is a statutory right that cannot be forfeited by explicit statutory provision. In fact, pension, gratuity, and leave encashment are rights that cannot be deprived without due process of law.
“Death of an employee would not negate the right of leave encashment that the employee would have had at the time of retirement.”
Given the aforesaid legal position, the Court stated that the right to receive the aforesaid benefits is a constitutional right.
Noting that gratuity or retirement dues can be withheld or reduced only as per the provisions made under M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (the Rules), the Court stated that in the present case, there was no material on record to show that the respondents took any action invoking the Rules to stop or withhold gratuity or other dues.
Regarding the MP Government Notification dated 14 November 1972, which delineates the order of priority in which ex gratia payment shall be made, the Court noted that the notification does not debar the married daughter. If the deceased has more than one son/daughter, then the eldest son is the only eligible recipient of ex gratia. Secondly, if the eldest daughter is married, then she precedes the son to get the ex gratia. Thirdly, the notification is silent as to who will receive the ex gratia if there are no heirs other than a married daughter. Thus, the Court held that the married daughter is not excluded if she is the only legal heir of the deceased.
“Ex gratia is not a legally mandatory payment like gratuity; it is discretionary, based on employer policy. The purpose of ex gratia is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased employee.”
The Court opined that an ex gratia payment to the employee after his death immediately, probably on the same day, 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.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, holding that the ex gratia and leave encashment of the deceased employee ought to be paid to his legal heir irrespective of her marital status. The Court directed such payment to be made within 60 days from the receipt of the order.
[Prasanna Namdev (Soni) v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 37546 of 2024, decided on 18-2-2026]
*Order authored by: Justice Pradeep Mittal
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Durgesh Kumar Singrore
For the respondents: Shobhitaditya
Buy Constitution of India HERE
1. W.A. No.756/2019