The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that a married daughter cannot be denied ex-gratia and leave encashment benefits arising from her father’s service. Justices Vivek Rusia and Pradeep Mittal ruled that marital status cannot disqualify legal heirs.
MADHYA PRADESH: In a landmark decision promoting gender equality and the rights of legal heirs, the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a married daughter cannot be denied ex-gratia and leave encashment benefits stemming from her father’s service.
The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal, emphasized that these benefits should be available to legal heirs without distinction based on marital status.
The Writ Petition (No. 37546 of 2024) was filed by Prasanna Namdev (Soni) to challenge orders issued by the respondents on May 24, 2024, and October 26, 2024, which denied her the aforementioned payments following her father’s death, citing her status as a married daughter. The Court permitted the petition, ordering the respondents to disburse the payments within 60 days.
Factual Background:
The petitioner’s father, Late Prabhat Kumar Namdev, served as a driver at the District Court in Narsinghpur under the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s jurisdiction. He passed away on May 9, 2024, while still in service. Having lost his wife earlier, he had designated the petitioner as his nominee in his official service records on July 26, 2016.
After his passing, the respondents issued the General Provident Fund (GPF) and Group Insurance Scheme amounts to the petitioner, recognizing her as the valid nominee. However, her requests for ex-gratia and leave encashment were denied solely because she was a married daughter.
Arguments of the Parties:
The petitioner’s counsel, Shri Durgesh Kumar Singrore, argued that the denial was arbitrary and contravened Article 14 of the Constitution. He maintained that since the petitioner was accepted as the nominee and legal heir for other benefits, there was no legal basis for denying ex-gratia and leave encashment.
He cited the Larger Bench decision in Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. Poorva Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd., affirming that excluding a married daughter from service benefits is unconstitutional.
Conversely, the respondents, represented by Shri Shobhitaditya, asserted that their orders were consistent with existing policy and government notifications. They contended that a married daughter was not included in the eligible category for ex-gratia and that mere nomination did not guarantee access to all service benefits.
Analysis of the Court:
The Court referenced the precedent established in Meenakshi Dubey (supra), stating:
“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 clarified that it constitutes a statutory right and is considered “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 Article 300-A of the Constitution. A person can be deprived from the property only in accordance with law made in this regard.”
Upon examining the Madhya Pradesh Government notification from November 14, 1972, pertaining to ex-gratia, the Court explained that while the rules establish a priority sequence (e.g., eldest son, then eldest unmarried daughter), they do not exclude a married daughter, particularly when she is the sole 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.”
Final Decision:
The High Court concluded that ex-gratia and leave encashment must be awarded to legal heirs irrespective of the marital status of a daughter.
The Court annulled the contested orders and instructed the respondents to pay the requested amounts to the petitioner within 60 days of receiving the order.
Case Title: Prasanna Namdev (Soni) Versus The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Others WP No. 37546 of 2024
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
