1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 371 of 2011. Vilas Madhavrao Bhagat ..vs.. The State of Mah.thru.The Secretary, Home Deptt.Mantralaya, Mumbai and anr. =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. V.A.Dhabe, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.S.Fulzele, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the respondents. C ORAM : P.V.HARDS AND S.B.DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 18th AUGUST, 2011. 1. A communication was received from the Jail from the petitioner complaining therein that he had not been allotted any work and consequently was not being paid any wages. The aforesaid communication was registered as Criminal Writ Petition and accordingly this court had appointed Advocate Shri V.A.Dhabe to represent the petitioner in this petition before us. 2. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents had filed a detailed affidavit of the Superintendent, Nagpur Central Prison, Nagpur. In the affidavit it is stated that the petitioner was convicted on 23/01/2006 for an offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and 2 was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The petitioner has been in Jail as an under trial prisoner from 16/10/2003 till 21/01/2006 i.e. for 2 years, 3 months and 8 days. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the petitioner was allotted the work in the Weaving Section on 30/01/2006. The petitioner joined the aforesaid Section on 31/01/2006 and thereafter he did not work at any time and consequently no wages were paid to him. Again the petitioner was produced before the Classification Committee and allotted the work in Weaving Section on 16/2/2006 but the petitioner showed his unwillingness to work in Weaving Section. Therefore, no wages were paid to the petitioner as he did not work in the Weaving Section at all. It is stated that the name of the petitioner has not been enrolled in the Wages Register or the Muster Roll as the petitioner had not worked at all. In fact, it is stated in the affidavit-in-reply that the register shows that the petitioner was not willing to work in any Section during the time of his confinement at the Nagpur Central Prison. In that light, it is stated that at present the petitioner is confined at Wardha District Jail and presently he is working in the Kitchen department and is receiving his wages regularly. 3. We have heard Shri V.A.Dhabe, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also perused the affidavit-in-reply submitted on behalf of the respondent. Upon such perusal, according to us, the petitioner has not made out any case at all. Though work was allotted to the petitioner, the petitioner did not work in the concerned Section and did not do the work which was allotted to him and consequently the petitioner was not paid any wages. In that light of the matter, 3 therefore, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. We, however, quantify the fees payable to the learned counsel appointed for the petitioner at Rs.1500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only). JUDGE JUDGE. chute