As per case facts, the petitioner's father, a driver, passed away, having nominated his daughter (the petitioner) as the beneficiary after his wife's demise. While the General Provident Fund and ... Group Insurance Scheme amounts were released to the petitioner, her claim for ex-gratia and leave encashment was rejected by the respondents solely on the ground that she is a married daughter. The petitioner appealed, asserting that this denial was discriminatory and violated constitutional rights. The question arose whether a married daughter, being the sole legal heir and nominee, could be denied ex-gratia and leave encashment benefits based on her marital status. Finally, the High Court held that denying ex-gratia and leave encashment to a married daughter is discriminatory and violates Articles 14, 16, 39(a), and 300A of the Constitution. Citing precedent, the court clarified that marital status cannot be a ground for exclusion from such benefits, especially when the daughter is the sole legal heir, and that ex-gratia payments are often intended for immediate financial relief related to the employee's death. The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents to pay the amounts within 60 days.