‘Married or not, daughter legal heir’: Madhya Pradesh High Court restores ex gratia for district court driver’s only child

The ex gratia payment is a voluntary money paid by the employer as a gesture of goodwill and not out of legal obligation.

Can married daughter be debarred?

• The ex-gratia and leave encashment of the employee should be paid to his legal heirs, without the differential that she is married or not.
• The relevant rule is made to resolve the controversy between the legal heirs of the dead employee, meaning that if the employee has more than one son or daughter, then the eldest son is only eligible to get ex gratia.
• If the eldest daughter is married, then she displaces the son to get the ex gratia.

• However, the notification is silent as to whether there are no heirs other than a married daughter, then who will receive the ex gratia.
• This suggests that the married daughter is not excluded if she is the only legal heir of the deceased.

Purpose of ex gratia

• Ex gratia is not a legally mandatory payment like gratuity, but it is discretionary, based on employer policy.
• The purpose of ex gratia is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the employee.
• Ex gratia payments upon an employee’s death are voluntary, compassionate lump-sum payments made by employers to beneficiaries.
• The 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.

Court’s analysis

• The employer cannot deny an employee such a right; leave encashment is a statutory right which cannot be forfeited by an explicit statutory provision.
• Pension, gratuity and leave encashment are rights that cannot be deprived without due process of law.
• The death of an employee would not negate the right of leave encashment that the employee would have had at the time of retirement.
• The retirement dues are also recognised as property in the Constitution.
• A person can be deprived of the property only in accordance with a law made in this regard.

‘Nomination for ex gratia amount’

• The petitioner’s father, Late Prabhat Kumar Namdev, was working as a driver at the district court of Narsinghpur under the administrative control of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and died in May 2025 during the course of service.
• During his lifetime, the petitioner’s father had nominated the petitioner in his service record in July 2016. Before the nomination of the petitioner, the petitioner’s mother was nominated. However, she predeceased him.
• Consequently, he changed the nomination and recorded the petitioner as a nominee in the official service record.

• 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 high court sanctioned and released the GPF amount by the October 2024 order in favour of the petitioner, acknowledging her as the recorded nominee.
• The amount under the Karmchari Group Insurance Scheme was also released by the July 2024 order.
• However, the claim of the petitioner for ex gratia and leave encashment was rejected by the high court in May 2024 and October 2024 orders solely on the ground that a married daughter is not entitled to receive such benefits.

‘Ex gratia denied’

• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Durgesh Kumar Singrore argued that the May 2024 and October 2024 orders of the high court, being an employer, are arbitrary, illegal, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
• Singrore emphasised that the denial of ex gratia and leave encashment solely on the ground that she is a married daughter of the employee makes the orders illegal.
• It was further submitted that the petitioner’s father, who was serving as a driver, died in May 2024 during his service tenure.
• At the time of his death, the petitioner was the only surviving legal heir. The employee had duly nominated the petitioner in his service record in July 2016 after the death of his wife.
• The employer-high court themselves have recognised the petitioner as a valid nominee by releasing the GPF amount and the amount under the group insurance scheme in her favour.
• It was also pointed out that a compassionate appointment was given to the petitioner.
• It was stated that once the petitioner was accepted as the nominee and successor of her father, other retirement benefits were released to her.
• Therefore, 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.
• Being the only legal heir and recorded nominee in the service record of the employee, is fully entitled to all consequential service benefits, including ex gratia and leave encashment.
• The rejection of her claim on the grounds of marital status is discriminatory, contrary to principles of natural justice, and against the provisions of the Constitution.

‘Can’t confer ex-gratia’

• On the contrary, the employer’s counsel, advocate Shobhitaditya, submitted that the 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.