- (1.) The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against interlocutory orders dated 28.02.2011 and 12.05.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is appropriate to mention that the writ petition filed before the learned Single Judge came up for hearing for the first time on 28.02.2011 when the mandatory directions were issued to the appellants that an appropriate order giving suitable appointment to the petitioner-respondent be passed before the adjourned date i.e. 03.05.2011, failing which Managing Director of the appellant-Corporation was to remain present in the Court. A further direction was also issued that if there was no sanctioned post with the appellant-Corporation against which the writ petitioner-respondent could be given suitable appointment then they may approach the State Government who in turn was mandated to accord permission for creation of the post. It was further directed that the writ petitioner- respondent was required to be given appointment keeping in view the nature of disability suffered by him while performing his duty. In the earlier part of the order, it has been noticed that he has suffered 90% permanent disability while working as daily wager with the appellants-Corporation.
(2.) Mr. R.S. Khosla, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that issuance of mandatory directions on the first date of hearing, ordinarily would not be permissible unless an exception pieced is carved out resulting into such an irreparable loss that it cannot be rectified rectified. According to learned counsel, the principle regarding exercise of jurisdiction for issuance of mandatory directions are clearly well settled and an opportunity to file written statement to appreciate the stand taken by the appellant should ordinarily be granted. Learned counsel has maintained that the writ petitioner-respondent has been without job since 18.07.1995 and further disability when he was repairing roof sheets at Generator shed of Anandpur Sahib Hydel Project. It was at that time he slipped and fell down on the iron sheets resulting into damage of his backbone and his disability was assessed to 90%.
(3.) Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, states that it is in fact, an exceptional case and there is no limit put on the writ court to exercise jurisdiction at any stage to reach injustice. Learned counsel has maintained that the writ petitioner-respondent has suffered 90% disability and there is nothing wrong with the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the first date of hearing i.e. 28.02.2011 and thereafter on 12.05.2011 . It has also been submitted that the stand of the appellants which they have taken before the Punjab Human Rights Commission at Chandigarh was already on the file and it is not a case where the learned Single Judge would be regarded to have exercised jurisdiction without considering the plea of the appellants.;