ORDER

P. Sathasivam, J.- Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final order dated 19.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2243 of 2010 whereby the High Court disposed of the petition filed by the appellant herein.

3. Brief facts:

(i) The appellant was convicted by the trial Court in case FIR No. 487 of 1995 under Sections 323, 342, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 10 years and, thereafter, the High Court, in an appeal filed by the appellant, reduced the period of sentence to 5 years. The appellant remained in Tihar Central Jail, New Delhi from 24.03.2007 to 23.12.2010 i.e., for a period of 3 years and 10 months after grant of remission. During this period, she was allotted work in Medical Inspection (MI) room as ‘Sewadar’ (Assistant) for assisting the Doctors in OPD of Jail No. 6. Apart from that, she was also taking care of the cleanliness of the said room till her release.

(ii) In the year 2009, the appellant, through her husband, filed an application before the Superintendent of Jail for the payment of wages for the work done during her custody in prison but the same was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a complaint before the visiting Judge, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) for the release of wages for the work done by his wife. After perusing the documents on record, by order dated 08.04.2010, the visiting Judge (ASJ) rejected the said complaint.

(iii) Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) before the High Court of Delhi for quashing the order dated 08.04.2010, passed by the visiting Judge (ASJ) and also prayed for the release of her wages. The High Court, by impugned order dated 19.05.2011, disposed of the petition taking note of the fact that the appellant has already been released from jail and relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the DIG (Prisons) stating therein that the prisoners who perform hard labour are given the wages and the appellant performed soft labour work during her period in jail and whenever the appellant was given hard labour work, she had drawn wages for that period.

(iv) Challenging the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4. Heard Ms. Prachi Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.

5. Ms. Prachi Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant, after taking us through the entire materials including the impugned order of the High Court, submitted that inasmuch as the convicts working in M.I. Room of another Jail were getting payments for the same work, the appellant was denied and paid wages only for few months which aspect has not been considered by the High Court. According to the learned counsel, the Jail Authorities and the High Court failed to appreciate that the appellant was throughout engaged in M.I. room for assisting doctors in OPD and was taking care of the cleanliness till her release, hence, she is entitled for wages in terms of various Government Orders for the said period.

6. On the other hand, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned ASG after placing relevant circulars/instructions/orders applicable to various types of prisoners, their eligibility, entitlement of wages for their work and details about the work done and wages paid to the appellant submitted that she was paid as per the rules and she is not entitled to any further amount.

7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused all the relevant materials. In order to understand the case better, it is useful to refer certain relevant provisions applicable to the prisoners in Delhi. Types of Imprisonment Section 53 of the IPC defines 5 kinds of punishment which includes punishment for life and two other kinds of imprisonment i.e., rigorou