' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---The petitioners had applied for the posts advertised for recruitment respectively. According to them the merit list was prepared and displayed, however, they were not issued the appointment letters due to a ban imposed on recruitments dated 22-2-1997. The said ban was assailed by some similarly situated persons through various writ petitions. In W.P.
No,6592/97 the main judgment was delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court who accepted the same on 29-4-1999. The petitioners herein though were not initially parties but were impleaded as party to the same Intra-Court Appeal No,584 of 1999 filed against the said judgment was accepted by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 27..9-1999. The matter then was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.A. No,493 of 2000 to C.A. No,498 of 2000 and the judgment rendered by the I.C.A. Bench was set aside and that of the learned Single Judge dated 29-4-1999 was restored. The petitioners approached the respondents for the redressal of their grievance i,e, the issuance of appointment orders but their request was declined on the ground that they were not parties before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pa cistan. This petition has been filed in that context.
2. In almost similar background W.P. No,334 of 2005 has arisen which will stand disposed of accordingly. The petitioner in W.P. No,6471 of 2005 though had applied to become party in the writ petition yet his application remained unconsidered. He had however filed C.M.P. No,1848 of 2000 in C.A. No,494 of 2000 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Since the import of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan is not likely to have different effect and implications qua him this petition stand disposed of through this judgment.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that not only that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan laying down a principle governs the situation and applies to all similarly situated persons, the petitioners though were party in W.P. No,6592/92, they were not impleaded as respondents in I.C. A. No,584/99, therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge had become final qua them and the respondents were very much bound by the same. In this context reliance has been placed upon Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi and others (2005 SCM R 499).
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General Punjab however contends that since the petitioners were not party before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan they cannot be extended benefit of the said judgment The respective contentions have been considered. It may be observed that in the precedent case of Tara Chand (Supra) it was observed "when Tribunal or Court decides a point of law relating to the terms of service of a civil servant which covers not only the case of the civil servants who litigated, but also of other civil servants, who may have not taken any legal proceedings, the dictates of justice and rule of good governance demand that the benefit of the above judgment be extended to other civil servants, who may not be parties to the above litigation instead of compelling them to approach the Tribunal or any other legal forum. This Court in the case of Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir and others v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2003 SCM R 1030 also extended the benefit to all the persons falling within the same category in order to do complete justice. To further fortify, reference is made to the case of Hakim Muhammad Nabi Khan and 2 others v. Warasatullah through Legal Representatives 1987 SCM R 1698, wherein this Court had allowed benefit of relief to non-appearing party of doing complete justice". Thus, besides the dictates of justice as highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, the other principle attracted to the situation is that the petitioners though had indeed been party in the writ petition yet while filing Intra-Court Appeal against the judgment they were not impleaded as respondents.
On the strength of the principle stated in Pir Bakhsh represented by his legal heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 SC 145) the judgment of the learned Single Judge qua them had attained finality and govern the situation. On both counts the petitioners were entitled to the relief which has unjustifiably been denied to them on erroneous and untenable premises.
' The writ petition is accepted accordingly with no order as to costs.