We granted the Commonwealth's application for further appellate review to consider the question of the petitioner's right to statutory good time credits (see G.L.c. 127, § 129) against certain sentences. The facts in this case are set out in the opinion of the Appeals Court, Lynch, petitioner, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 529, 530-531 (1979). We must consider two questions: (1) whether the petitioner must forgo any statutory good conduct deductions which might have been earned against his eighteen-to-twenty-year sentences during the approximately two years he concurrently served an unrelated sentence, because during that time he should have been on parole from the eighteen-to-twenty-year sentences, and (2) whether the petitioner forfeited good time credits earned on the eighteen-to-twenty-year sentences because of his escape on November 19, 1974, while being held on all these sentences.

Pina v. Superintendent, M.C.I., Walpole, 376 Mass. 659, 662 (1978). See also Lynch, petitioner, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 529, 537 n. 14 (1979) (General Laws c. 127, § 149, requires that a prisoner who is released on parole and complies with the terms and conditions of his parole "continues to serve his sentence in the sense that he remains subject to supervision and is given day for day credit against the unexpired term of his sentence"). Therefore, because Crooker began to serve his B sentences when he was released on parole, he should receive day-for-day credit against both his sentences during the time he spent on parole.

Chalifoux v. Commissioner of Correction, 375 Mass. 424, 427-428 (1978). Lynch, petitioner, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 529, 533-534 (1979), S.C., 379 Mass. 757 (1980). Commonwealth v. Carter, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 618, 620-621 (1980).

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Board did not violate Cinelli's due process rights when it revoked his parole without a hearing following his arrest on the Walpole charges. Nothing in Lynch, petitioner, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 529 (1979), a case cited by Cinelli at oral argument, is to the contrary. In that case, the Appeals Court held that a prisoner, who was sentenced to serve a 2 ½ — 3 year sentence concurrently with an 18-20 year sentence on which his parole was improperly revoked, was entitled to good conduct deductions from his 18-20 year sentence during the period that he was confined on the 2 ½ — 3 year sentence.