Dulharsingh Daulatsingh Jarhade Vs. the State of Maharashtra - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
oral judgment: (a.h. joshi, j.) 1] rule. rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned app. 2] this is a letter petition. the petitioner is a convict. he claims that he has been designated as a night watchman in the jail. 3] petitioner was released on furlough for 30 days, and he has returned on 7.2.2012. thereafter, on 6.3.2012, the petitioner has applied for parole on the ground that health of his daughter sangita is unwell and special attention to her is needed. 4] petitioner has relied upon a medical certificate, which is dated 10.4.2012 and is issued by dr.mrs.deoyani deshpande, m.b.b.s., d.a., of aurangabad.. the text of certificate reads as follows:- "this is to certify that smt.sangita w/o dulersingh jarhade is suffering from severe icterus and anaemia. her husband should be with his wife for the care of her at least one month starting from today.sd/dr.deoyanideshpande" 5] the petitioner's request for parole has been rejected by order dated 29 / 31st may, 2012 on the ground that as per standing orders issued by the government, the parole cannot be within one year from the date of release on furlough except on the ground of death of a near relative. 6] the petitioner claims that he should be granted parole alike a "leave" as a matter of right as available to government servants. 7] in order to substantiate his claim as a right, the petitioner claims parity with that of the government servants who avail casual and/or earned leave. 8] we have seriously examined the contents of the petition. 9] normally in case of a prisoner, who craves to enforce his legal right and wants to do this by filing a letter petition, this court often appoints an advocate to assist the court to have the prisoner's case ably represented. in present letter petition, the petitioner is far more ingenious, and probably more than an advocate. even an advocate may not find a point with more ingenuity with which the petitioner has thought and expressed. 10] in this background, we find it appropriate to peruse the petition, consider the contents, analyze those and decide the petition. 11] it is seen that the petitioner desires that a prisoner be treated and be held eligible to avail facilities of leave of absence on par with a government servant. 12] this aspect is required to be dealt for enabling the petitioner to know where he stands. to have the comparison at hand, we analyze and compare the description and points as follows: government / public servantprisoner1he enters into job upon undergoing recruitment procedure, the selection and based on statutory contract according to the rules.he enters the prison having committed offence and being convicted.2puts in service and earns rightfor leave or becomes entitled for medical leave as per rules.he is accorded concession of furlough / parole upon fulfillment of conditions prescribedby the rules. furlough and parole are concessions rather than a right.3avails leave of casual absence, which in fact is a leave for absence for the reasons beyond his control, which is known  in common parlance as casualleave.no such eventuality exists, as the prisoner is aninmate of jail.4medical leave is a concession available as per rules.no such thing applies to a prisoner as he gets medical treatment while beingin confinement.5there is nothing like parole or furlough applicable to free men.furlough is a special concession made available to the prisoner to meet his family member while parole is for meeting a contingency such as death or grave sickness of near relative. these concessions are granted upon exercise of powers by the authorities prescribed andas per rules.6his liberty of movement is not limited and confined to jail premises like a prisoner.liberty of movement is confined only within jail premises and subject to rules and he is not comparable with civilians whoare not convicts.7after completion of service in normal course, no blot or stigma on conduct is attached.the tag of conviction and punishment remains attached on the prisoner even after imprisonment is completed.8no disqualification is attached or earned by a public servant if he successfully completes servicetenure.certain disqualifications are attached once a person is convicted and sentenced by a court of law and completesimprisonment.13] it would be vivid and does not need any elucidation to notice that government servant and the prisoner do not have even slightest comparable essence or ingredients. 14] thus, it is seen that there is no semblance whatsoever between the government / public servant and the prisoner. 15] had the petitioner been a lawyer with positive and constructive attitude, he would have rendered quite a good service to the law. the petitioner's intellect is a genius misplaced, misdirected, wasteful and rather perverted. 16] it is seen from the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner, it does not inspire confidence. the sickness / ailment described is vague. this certificate is issued by an anesthesiologist, who normally does not practice as a consultant in general medicine. therefore, the medical certificate subject matter and petitioner's claim based on it does not inspire confidence. 17] in the circumstances, the petition does not deserve any indulgence and the same is dismissed. rule is discharged. 18] the superintendent of prison is directed to give copy of this order to the prisoner as well as to interpret this order to him and to inform him to be reasonable and not to be vexatious in future. 19] learned app is directed to communicate this order to the concerned superintendent of prison for compliance. 20] office is directed to issue authenticated copy of the order to the learned app for enabling him to act upon it.

Judgment:

Oral Judgment: (A.H. Joshi, J.)

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned APP.

2] This is a letter petition. The petitioner is a convict. He claims that he has been designated as a night watchman in the jail.

3] Petitioner was released on furlough for 30 days, and he has returned on 7.2.2012. Thereafter, on 6.3.2012, the petitioner has applied for parole on the ground that health of his daughter Sangita is unwell and special attention to her is needed.

4] Petitioner has relied upon a medical certificate, which is dated 10.4.2012 and is issued by Dr.Mrs.Deoyani Deshpande, M.B.B.S., D.A., of Aurangabad.. The text of certificate reads as follows:-

"This is to certify that Smt.Sangita w/o Dulersingh Jarhade is suffering from severe Icterus and Anaemia. Her husband should be with his wife for the care of her at least one month starting from today.

Sd/Dr.

DeoyaniDeshpande"

5] The petitioner's request for parole has been rejected by order dated 29 / 31st May, 2012 on the ground that as per standing orders issued by the Government, the parole cannot be within one year from the date of release on furlough except on the ground of death of a near relative.

6] The petitioner claims that he should be granted parole alike a "leave" as a matter of right as available to Government servants.

7] In order to substantiate his claim as a right, the petitioner claims parity with that of the Government servants who avail casual and/or earned leave.

8] We have seriously examined the contents of the petition.

9] Normally in case of a prisoner, who craves to enforce his legal right and wants to do this by filing a letter petition, this Court often appoints an Advocate to assist the Court to have the prisoner's case ably represented. In present letter petition, the petitioner is far more ingenious, and probably more than an Advocate. Even an Advocate may not find a point with more ingenuity with which the petitioner has thought and expressed.

10] In this background, we find it appropriate to peruse the petition, consider the contents, analyze those and decide the petition.

11] It is seen that the petitioner desires that a prisoner be treated and be held eligible to avail facilities of leave of absence on par with a Government servant.

12] This aspect is required to be dealt for enabling the petitioner to know where he stands. To have the comparison at hand, we analyze and compare the description and points as follows:

	Government / public servant	Prisoner
1	He enters into job upon undergoing recruitment procedure, the selection and based on statutory contract according to the rules.	He enters the prison having committed offence and being convicted.
2	Puts in service and earns rightfor leave or becomes entitled for medical leave as per rules.	He is accorded concession of furlough / parole upon fulfillment of conditions prescribedby the rules. Furlough and parole are concessions rather than a right.
3	Avails leave of casual absence, which in fact is a leave for absence for the reasons beyond his control, which is known  in common parlance as casualleave.	No such eventuality exists, as the prisoner is aninmate of jail.
4	Medical leave is a concession available as per rules.	No such thing applies to a prisoner as he gets medical treatment while beingin confinement.
5	There is nothing like parole or furlough applicable to free men.	Furlough is a special concession made available to the prisoner to meet his family member while parole is for meeting a contingency such as death or grave sickness of near relative. These concessions are granted upon exercise of powers by the authorities prescribed andas per rules.
6	His liberty of movement is not limited and confined to jail premises like a prisoner.	Liberty of movement is confined only within jail premises and subject to rules and he is not comparable with civilians whoare not convicts.
7	After completion of service in normal course, no blot or stigma on conduct is attached.	The tag of conviction and punishment remains attached on the prisoner even after imprisonment is completed.
8	No disqualification is attached or earned by a public servant if he successfully completes servicetenure.	Certain disqualifications are attached once a person is convicted and sentenced by a Court of law and completesimprisonment.

13] It would be vivid and does not need any elucidation to notice that Government servant and the prisoner do not have even slightest comparable essence or ingredients.

14] Thus, it is seen that there is no semblance whatsoever between the Government / public servant and the prisoner.

15] Had the petitioner been a lawyer with positive and constructive attitude, he would have rendered quite a good service to the law. The petitioner's intellect is a genius misplaced, misdirected, wasteful and rather perverted.

16] It is seen from the medical certificate relied upon by the petitioner, it does not inspire confidence. The sickness / ailment described is vague. This certificate is issued by an Anesthesiologist, who normally does not practice as a consultant in general medicine. Therefore, the medical certificate subject matter and petitioner's claim based on it does not inspire confidence.

17] In the circumstances, the petition does not deserve any indulgence and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

18] The Superintendent of Prison is directed to give copy of this order to the prisoner as well as to interpret this order to him and to inform him to be reasonable and not to be vexatious in future.

19] Learned APP is directed to communicate this order to the concerned Superintendent of Prison for compliance.

20] Office is directed to issue authenticated copy of the order to the learned APP for enabling him to act upon it.