IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA

<>

&

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL

<>

ON THE 18

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 37546 of 2024

<>

PRASANNA NAMDEV (SONI)

<>

Versus

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Durgesh Kumar Singrore - Advocate for petitioner.

Shri Shobhitaditya - Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2.

ORDER

<>

Per

<>

: Justice Pradeep Mittal

<>

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

challenging the orders dated 24.05.2024 and 26.10.2024 passed by the

respondents, whereby the petitioner has been denied payment of ex-

gratia and leave encashment.

2. The father of the petitioner, Late Prabhat Kumar Namdev,

was working as a Driver at the District Court, Narsinghpur under the

administrative control of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. During the

course of his service, he expired on 09.05.2024. During his lifetime, Late

Prabhat Kumar Namdev had nominated the petitioner in his service

record on 26.07.2016. Earlier, his wife, Smt. Vimla Namdev, had been

1 WP-37546-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14293

nominated, however, she predeceased him. Consequently, he changed

the nomination and recorded the petitioner as nominee in the official

service record.After the death of her father, the petitioner submitted

applications seeking settlement of retiral and service benefits, including

GPF, leave encashment, ex-gratia, and other admissible dues. The

respondents sanctioned and released the GPF amount vide order dated

14.10.2024 in favour of the petitioner, acknowledging her as the

recorded nominee. The amount under the Karmchari Group Insurance

Scheme was also released vide order dated 24.07.2024.

3. However, the claim of the petitioner for ex-gratia and leave

encashment was rejected by the respondents vide impugned orders dated

24.05.2024 and 26.10.2024 solely on the ground that a married daughter

is not entitled to receive such benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned

orders dated 24.05.2024 and 26.10.2024 are arbitrary, illegal, and

violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the

petitioner has been denied ex-gratia and leave encashment solely on the

ground that she is a married daughter of the deceased employee.

5. It is submitted that Late Prabhat Kumar Namdev, who was

serving as a Driver under the administrative control of the Madhya

Pradesh High Court, expired on 09.05.2024 during his service tenure. At

the time of his death, the petitioner was the only surviving legal heir.

The deceased employee had duly nominated the petitioner in his service

2 WP-37546-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14293

record on 26.07.2016 after the death of his wife. The respondents

themselves have recognized the petitioner as a valid nominee by

releasing the GPF amount and the amount under the Group Insurance

Scheme in her favour. Compassionate appointment also given to the

petitioner.

6. Learned counsel contends that once the petitioner has been

accepted as the nominee and successor of the deceased employee and

other retiral benefits have been released to her, there is no justification in

law to deny ex-gratia and leave encashment on the sole ground that she

is a married daughter. Such classification has no rational nexus with the

object sought to be achieved and amounts to hostile discrimination.

7. It is further submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to

the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Hon’ble Court in

Meenakshi Dubey v. M.P. PoorvaKshetra Vidyut Vitran Co. Ltd.,

wherein it has been categorically held that exclusion of a married

daughter from entitlement to service/death benefits is unconstitutional

and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner, being the only

legal heir and duly recorded nominee in the service record of the

deceased employee, is fully entitled to all consequential service benefits,

including ex-gratia and leave encashment. The rejection of her claim on

the ground of marital status is discriminatory, contrary to principles of

natural justice, and against the constitutional mandate envisaged under

3 WP-37546-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14293

Part III of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the

impugned orders have been passed strictly in accordance with the

applicable rules and policy governing ex-gratia and leave encashment. It

is contended that mere nomination does not confer an absolute right to

all service benefits, and as per the prevailing policy, a married daughter

is not covered within the eligible category for ex-gratia. It is further

submitted that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India and the judgment in Meenakshi Dubey (supra) is distinguishable.

Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

records.

10. The larger Bench of this Court in case of Meenakshi Dubey

(supra) has held that the clause to the extent it deprives a married

daughter from consideration for compassionate appointment hits Art. 14,

16 and 39(a) of the Constitution. 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.

11. Depriving an employee of leave encashment is violative of

Article 300A of The Indian Constitution. The Court stated that the

employee has chosen to accumulate his earned leave to his credit and

encashment becomes his right. The employer cannot deny employee of

4 WP-37546-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14293

such right. The right to leave encashment is a statutory right which

cannot be forfeited by explicit statutory provision. pension, gratuity and

leave encashment are rights that cannot be deprived without due process

of law. Death of employ would not negate the right of leave encashment

that the employees would have had at the time of retirement.

12. The retiral dues are also recognized as property under the

Article 300-A of the Constitution. A person can be deprived from the

property only in accordance with law made in this regard. In Bhaskar

Ramchandra Joshi v. State of M.P., reported in 2013 (4) MPLJ 35 it has

been so held.

13. In the light of aforesaid legal position, it is crystal clear that

right to get the aforesaid benefits is constitutional right. Gratuity or

retiral dues can be withheld or reduced only as per provision made under

M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. In the present case, there is

no material on record to show that respondents have taken any action in

invoking the said rules to stop or withhold gratuity or other dues.

14. Respondent invite our attention towards the notification of

Madhya Pradesh Government No 2355-IV-R-II-72 dated Bhopal, the

14th November 1972, in above notification the category of a person

whom received the ex gratia. Relevant provision of the notification is

given below.

"4. ‘To whom payable:

<>

The ex-gratia payment shall be made to the persons indicated

<>

5 WP-37546-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14293

below in the order of priority.

<>

(i) Husband or wife of the deceased Government servant. Where

<>

more than one wife is living, the ex-gratia payment would be shared

<>

equally between them.

<>

(ii) The eldest Son of the deceased Government servant, even

<>

though he may not be the eldest in the family.

<>

(iii) The eldest Un married daughter of the deceased

<>

Government servant."

<>

15. 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, meaning thereby if the deceased is having more

than one son/daughter, then the eldest son is only eligible to get ex-

gratia. Secondly, if the eldest daughter is married, then she ousts the son

to get the ex-gratia. Thirdly, on this point, 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.

16. 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. Ex gratia payments upon an employee's death are voluntary,

compassionate lump-sum payments made by employers to beneficiaries.

In our opinion, ex gratia paid to the employee after his death

6 WP-37546-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14293

(VIVEK RUSIA)

<>

JUDGE

<>

(PRADEEP MITTAL)

<>

JUDGE

<>

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.

17. We are the considered opinion 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.

18. With above view the writ petition is allowed and respondent is

directed that the leave encashment or ex gratia amount be paid to the

petitioner within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

No order of cost.

Praveen

7 WP-37546-2024NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14293