JUDGMENT:- Heard Mr. S. Karpe, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner under the Legal Aid Scheme and Ms. W. Coutinho, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner is a convict undergoing sentence under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and as on 12-09-2005 he has undergone 5 years, 10 months and 18 days out of 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and in default 1 year imprisonment imposed upon him. In this petition, he has raised two grievances. 3. As far as the first grievance is concerned, the petitioner was ordered to be released on parole for a period of 30 days by the Inspector General of Prisons vide his Order dated 02-01-2004 and it appears that till date, for one reason or the other, the petitioner has been unable to enjoy the said facility. 4. Mr. Karpc, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has drawn my attention to para 2 of the affidavit dated 13-09-2005 of the Inspector General of Prisons and has submitted that the Jail Authorities are still insisting that the petitioner executes a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- in cash with one surety in the like amount. Needless to observe, this Court by Order dated 20-01-2005 has clarified that the petitioner was not required to deposit cash security in order to enable him to proceed on parole pursuant to the said Order of the Inspector General of Prisons. 5. Needless to observe, in the light of the said Order, the Inspector General of Prisons is not entitled to insist that the prisoner deposits cash security of Rs.20,000/- and also executes a surety bond. All that the petitioner is required to execute is a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount. 6. In case, the petitioner finds that for any reason the amount of the bond is excessive then the petitioner is at liberty to apply to the Inspector General of Prisons for reduction of the bail bond with surety and in case, such an application is made, the Inspector General of Prisons is directed to consider the same in accordance with law at a very early date considering that inspite of the said Order dated 02-01-2004, the petitioner has not been able to avail of the said parole facility. 7. 7. The second grievance of the petitioner is regarding non-payment of wages for the work done by him. By Order of this Court dated 14-09-2005, the Inspector General of Prisons was directed to file an affidavit as regards the said grievance of the petitioner, as the affidavit dated 13-09-2005 had made no reference to the said grievance of the petitioner. It is not known whether the Work Assignment Committee to be constituted under Rule 12 of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Employment of Prisoners) Rules, 1968 was put in place and if so, since when, pursuant to the directions given by the learned Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No.16/2004. It is not known whether any work was allotted to the petitioner by the said Work Assignment Committee, for which the petitioner claims he was not paid. 8. The Inspector General of Prisons in para 4 of the affidavit dated 21-09-2005 had stated that it was reported to him by the Superintendent of Central Jail, Aguada that the then Superintendent Mr. H. D. Mashelkar had informally permitted the petitioner to do typing work of the prisoners voluntarily without any wages so that he learns typing work and that the Jail Authorities had noticed that the petitioner had started misusing the typewriter for writing complaints against the other staff members and also started abusing the prisoners to pay him through canteen coupons. However, the former Superintendent Mr. H. D. Mashelkar by his affidavit dated 27-09-2005 has stated in para 3 that during his tenure as the Superintendent of Central Jail, Aguada, from 22-06-1999 to 17-09-2001 he had not permitted the petitioner to do any typing work of the prisoners and, therefore, the said petitioner was not entitled for wages. 9. It appears from para'4 of the affidavit dated 21-09-2005 of the Inspector General of Prisons and para 3 of the affidavit dated 27-09-2005 of Mr. H. D. Mashelkar that all is not well as regards the collection of information by the Jail Authorities. The Inspector General of Prisons, therefore, is hereby directed to file a comprehensive affidavit regarding the second grievance of the petitioner in the light of what has been stated hereinabove within a period of one week from today after conducting the necessary inquiry, if necessary, with the supervisory staff of the Central Jail, Aguada. S.O.-20th October, 2005. The Inspector General of Prisons, therefore, is hereby directed to file a comprehensive affidavit regarding the second grievance of the petitioner in the light of what has been stated hereinabove within a period of one week from today after conducting the necessary inquiry, if necessary, with the supervisory staff of the Central Jail, Aguada. S.O.-20th October, 2005. Authenticated copy of the Order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Respondents. Order accordingly.