Yogesh Natthuji Uikey (C-4866(151)) v. Superintendent Of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati And Another.

2023:BHC-NAG:14420-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.

OF 20 Yogesh Natthuji Uikey [C-4866(151)], Aged about 32 years, Occ. NA r/o New Gyaneshwar Nagar, Ajni, Tq. & Distt.

Nagpur.

... PETITIONER.

VERSUS

1.

Superintendent of Jail, Central Prison, Amravati.

2.

Senior Jailer, Central Prison, Amravati.

... RESPONDENTS.

_____________________________________________________________ Advocate Ratna Singh for the Petitioner.

Mrs. N. Tripathi, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State. ______________________________________________________________ CORAM : VINAY JOSHI AND VALMIKI SA MENEZES , J J.

DATED : 03.10.2023.

ORAL

JUDGMENT

: (Per : Vinay Joshi, J.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2.

The matter is taken up for final disposal by consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3.

The petitioner has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment and order dated 18.04.2016 in Criminal Case No.44 of 2014. The Petitioner is serving life imprisonment at Amravati Central Prison. The Petitioner has been transferred to Open Prison in the month of January, 2022, where he is serving the remainder term of sentence. 4.

It is the Petitioner's principal grievance that, though he is ready to do work for gain however the Jail Superintendent has not assigned him any work. According to the Petitioner, he is ready to do any kind of work on daily basis as he is in need of remuneration for survival of his family and to pay the fine amount. The Petitioner has alleged that the Prison Authorities are assigning daily work to some of the convicts, who are named in paragraph 4 of the petition. In other words, a Policy of pick and choose has been adopted by the Work Assignment Committee, and therefore, the petitioner seeks for direction.

5.

We have gone through the allegations as well as the reply filed by the State. It is submitted that initially, agricultural work was assigned to the Petitioner and thereafter, weaving work was given. However, there is no clarification as to why the daily work was assigned

to the rest and not to the Petitioner.

6.

In view of above, we hereby direct the Respondents to assign the work on daily basis (of any nature) to the Petitioner. 7.

The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs. (VALMIKI SA MENEZES, J.) (VINAY JOSHI, J.) Trupti