1` IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Writ Petition No. 125/2011 Nilkanth Satoo Meshram vs. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. Ms Preeti Rane, Advoacate for the petitioner. Mrs. Ketki Joshi, APP for respondents. CORAM : MRS. V.K.TAHILRAMANI & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ DATE : 30.3.2011 Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner is serving life imprisonment. The grievance of the petitioner is that earlier he was working as convict overseer for which he was getting wages. As he was working as an overseer he was given special uniform, belt and cap. The grievance of the petitioner is that his belt, uniform and cap were withdrawn with effect from 7.1.2010 and he was not paid his wages for the work he did as an overseer. 3. We have perused the jail record. The jail record, in fact, shows that the petitioner has worked as overseer for the full month of January, February and March, 2010 and he has been paid his wages for the work from 1.1.2010 up to 31.3.2010. However, on 2` petitioner abused the prison staff and indulged in strange behaviour. The prison officials found that the petitioner is mentally disturbed and referred him to the psychiatrist and psychologist in the prison hospital for medical treatment and management. The petitioner was examined in the prison hospital and admitted on 5.4.2010 for observation and necessary treatment in the prison hospital. He was under treatment in the hospital till 6th July,2010. Thereafter also the petitioner continued to be under the observation of the psychiatrist and he was undergoing counselling from the psychiatrist. The petitioner was declared fit on 30th August, 2010. It is on account of this, the petitioner was not allotted any work from the period from 1.4.2010 to 31.8.2010. However, thereafter for the period from 1.9.2010 he has been allotted the work and he is working as a convict overseer. He has also been paid wages for the said period from 1.9.2010. It is stated in the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Central Prison, Nagpur that the petitioner was never removed from the post of convict overseer but in view of the above reasons he was not allotted the work from 1.4.2010 to 31.8.2010. We find the petitioner was not allotted work from 1.4.2010 to 31.8.2010 for cogent reasons. As he was not allotted work, there is no question of paying him wages for the said period. In view of the above fact, we find no merit in 3` this petition. The petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE patle