ORDER 1. Shri N. K. Jain and Kum. Rekha Nadkar, Advocate appear in this matter as Amicus curiae. Shri B. S. Agarwal and Shri N. K. Mody, Advocate appear for Harishchandra Rajput and F.C.I, respectively. Shri R. A. Roman, Government Advocate for the State. Heard counsel. Shortly though few facts are to be stated which clouded petitioner's entitlement to claim "compassionate appointment". What is not disputed, however, needs also to be emphasized. Deceased Deshraj Rajput was working in Food Corporation of India and he died on 9-9-1986. The petitioner claiming to be his wife had laid claim to appointment on compassionate ground in the Food Corporation of India. Relevant provision extracted in "Swamy's Hand Book, 1990" at page 168 is relied on; and that is reproduced : "4. Compassionate appointment of dependents (Swamy's Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration) Scope. - An employee's son/daughter/near relative may be appointed on compassionate grounds in relaxation of the recruitment rules to a Group 'D' or Group 'C post (including technical cadres in the P and T Department). (i) When an employee dies in service or extension of service (including suicide) but not during re-employment leaving his family in immediate need of assistance when there is no other earning member in the family (Exception-in exceptional circumstances with prior approval of the Secretary of the Ministry/Department) concerned the appointment on compassionate grounds of a son/daughter/near relative of a Government' servant who dies in harness will be considered even when there is an earning member in the family of the deceased Government servant. (ii) When an employee is invalidated before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years in case of group 'D') if the Department is satisfied that the condition of the family is indigent and is in great distress. (iii) This concession is admissible only to one dependent." 2. Her entitlement is clouded because of an order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 17-11-1989 in M. A. No. 27 of 1989. In that order succession certificate granted to her in a pending Probate Case No. 41/87, by learned Additional District Judge, Gwalior, has been set aside. She had laid claim to Provident Funds dues as also dues on account of group-insurance, Contributory Insurance gratuity and life-insurance policy dues of deceased Deshraj, on the ground that she was his legally married wife. In that order succession certificate granted to her in a pending Probate Case No. 41/87, by learned Additional District Judge, Gwalior, has been set aside. She had laid claim to Provident Funds dues as also dues on account of group-insurance, Contributory Insurance gratuity and life-insurance policy dues of deceased Deshraj, on the ground that she was his legally married wife. This Court took the view that Succession Certificate had been issued to her by the Court below on the basis merely of the fact that she was entitled to that as an heir and successor to the deceased, which she was not. Because, validity of her marriage to deceased was challenged on the ground that at the time of their marriage the deceased had a living spouse. Subsequently, however, in the Probate Case final order was passed on 3-8-1990 and the will propounded by her has been probated. Under that Will also she claimed the same dues. Admittedly, however, appeal against that order is pending in this Court. 3. At one stage, in this matter, Harish Chand Rajput, brother of deceased Deshraj Rajput, had appeared and contested the fact that the petitioner's claim to status of wife of the deceased because of the finding of this Court in M. A. No. 27/89. He also stated that late Deshraj has not left behind him any children or legal heir except his first wife Krishna Devi, brother Harish Rajput and 3 married sisters as also his father. They are his surviving 'relatives'. In our view, we are not required to determine at all the legal validity of the status of the petitioner as to whether she can validly claim to be a legally married wife of deceased Deshraj Rajput. Therefore, we need not defer decision on the instant application due to pendency of the appeal against decision rendering finality in probate case. 4. We are merely concerned to interpret the provision aforesaid on the basis of which entitlement is claimed. That interpretation must match the object of the provision. As held by their Lordships in Utkal Constructions and Joinery Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1454 , reasons of any statutory provision are to be regarded as conclusive of the meaning to be attached to any particular term used therein. That interpretation must match the object of the provision. As held by their Lordships in Utkal Constructions and Joinery Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1987 SC 1454 , reasons of any statutory provision are to be regarded as conclusive of the meaning to be attached to any particular term used therein. In the instant case, we are required only to see if the word, "relative" and also the word, "dependent" would bring the petitioner within the scope of the provision extracted to uphold her entitlement. The dictionary meaning of the term, "relative" is very clear "that it indicates among other persons, who are related by blood or marriage". The term "relative" used in the provison aforequoted necessarily is relatable to the other expression "dependent" used therein. Needless to say that, unless the "relative" is also "dependent" on the deceased employee, his entitlement is not established. Clause (i) supplies the reason of the provision and meaning of the expression "relative" to co-relate it to the word "dependent". Therefore, on facts, it has to be ascertained if the petitioner can claim that she was "dependent" on the deceased during his life time and is "in immediate need of assistance". Judicial findings recorded in the orders, which are filed in this matter, establish one thing very clearly, whether under order dated 10-3-1990 in Probate Case No. 41 of 1987 passed by the learned. Additional District Judge, or under order of the learned Single Judge of this Court passed on 17-11-1989 in M. A. No. 27 of 1989 or even under order lastly pased on 3-8-1990 in Probate Case No. 41 of 1987 by the learned Additional District Judge. It is undisputed that Deshraj and the instant petitioner Madhuri Devi had been duly married and they lived together as husband and wife for 2 1/2 years. Nothing has come on record to suggest that the petitioner was duly employed during coverture and that she was not dependent on deceased Deshraj Rajput. In any case, her status by marriage was there : but legality of the status has been challenged only. She has not, therefore, ceased to be "relative" or even "dependent" of deceased Deshraj because of that challenge. In any case, her status by marriage was there : but legality of the status has been challenged only. She has not, therefore, ceased to be "relative" or even "dependent" of deceased Deshraj because of that challenge. In any case, for the purpose of entitlement for compassionate ground, it is not necesary, in our view, to examine the question of legality of the status for the short reason that the entitlement hinges on the question of dependency, to match the object of the provision, which is of social justice. That a "dependent" in need is not to be destituted and is to be cared for is the object of the provision. In our view, therefore, the petitioner can claim to be relative as also dependent within the meaning of the terms employed in the aforequoted provision and she is entitled to "compassionate appointment" in Food Corporation of India in place of deceased Deshraj Rajput. The petition is allowed and a direction is accordingly made to Food Corporation of India to give her compassionate appointment, as she has already made an application in that regard. Within 4 weeks necessary appointment order should be issued to her.