Indian High Court Rules Married Daughters Entitled to Father's Posthumous Benefits

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, India, has ruled that a father's service benefits cannot be denied to his married daughter. The court determined that denying a married daughter the payment of gratuity and accumulated leave benefits of her deceased father solely based on her marital status is unconstitutional and discriminatory.

A bench comprising Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal directed officials to pay all outstanding dues within 60 days while hearing a writ petition filed by Prasanna Namdev.

The petitioner Prasanna Namdev's father, Prabhatkumar Namdev, was employed as a driver in the Narsinghpur District Court. He passed away on May 9, 2024, while still in service. As his wife had already passed away, Prabhat Kumar had nominated his daughter Prasanna in his official service records.

After her father's death, Prasanna applied for payment of provident fund, group insurance, gratuity, and accumulated leave. Officials granted her compassionate appointment and paid the insurance amount. However, they refused to pay the gratuity amount and leave encashment, citing that she was a 'married daughter'.

Court's Argument: 'Daughter Remains Family Member Even After Marriage'

The court cited the previous case of 'Meenakshi Dubey' versus 'Madhya Pradesh Electricity Distribution Company' as a precedent, stating, 'No female citizen can be deprived of government benefits solely on the basis of gender. Even after marriage, a daughter always remains a part of her family.'

The court clarified that 'Leave Encashment' is not an employee's gift or donation but their legal and constitutional right. Referring to Article 300-A (Right to Property) of the Indian Constitution, the court observed, 'Leave payment is the property earned by the employee, which cannot be withheld without legal basis.'

The advocate arguing on behalf of the government contended that under policy, a married daughter is not eligible. However, the court dismissed this, stating that government policy should not discriminate whether the daughter is married or not. The court noted in its judgment, 'When the daughter is considered eligible for compassionate appointment and other benefits, withholding the remaining benefits does not appear logical.'