JUDGMENT 1. - This order shall dispose of D.B. Civil writ petitions Nos. 1168/81, 1823/81, 1824/81, 999/84, 1007/84, 1008/84, 394/87, 395/87, 396/87, 397/87, 398/87, 399/87, 896/87, 900/87, 901 /87, 1328/87, 2093/87, 2094/87, 2095/87, 2096/87 and 2293/87. All these writ petitions involve for decision the same point and the arguments advanced in them are common. 2. All the petitioners have the qualification of holding the National Apprenticeship Certificate awarded by the National Council for training in Vocational Trades, Ministry of Labour Government of India. By a decision of the Government of India conveyed to all the State Governments vide letter dated February 7, 1966 (Annexure 5) it has been pointed out that National Apprenticeship Certificate awarded after completion of full term apprenticeship for a minimum period of 3/4 years should be considered of a higher grade than the National Trade Certificate which is awarded after training in industrial Training Institutes. The grievance of all these petitioners is that the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board has given the higher pay scale No. 3 to the holders of National Trade Certificate obtained from the ITI against the lower pay scale No. 2 granted to the petitioners who hold the higher national apprenticeship certificate, in implementation of the Award Annexures 3 & 4 dated June 15, 1979. 3. The petitioners' case is that in response to the advertisement (Annexure 1) dated August 15, 1975 these petitioners as well as some holders of the National Trade Certificate issued by the ITI joined the Rajasthan State Electricity Board as apprentices but after completion of the period of apprenticeship the petitioners are being paid lower pay scale No. 2 while the I.T.I. certificate holders are being paid the higher pay scale No. 3. According to the petitioners the ITI certificate holders who joined the RSEB as apprentices along with the petitioners were given higher pay scale no. 3 by treating them to be governed by clause (i) of para 22 of the aforesaid Award dated June 15,1979 whip the petitioners are treated as governed by clause (iii) of para 22 which provides for payment of the lower pay scale no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that there was no infirmity in giving to the ITI certificate holders preference on the basis of earlier practical training as provided in the advertisement (Annexure l). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that there was no infirmity in giving to the ITI certificate holders preference on the basis of earlier practical training as provided in the advertisement (Annexure l). However, he argued that the petitioners should be treated alike on completion by them of the same length of training by giving them the higher pay scale no.3 automatically as is done in the case of ITI certificate holders. It is on this basis that discrimination has been alleged by the petitioners. 4. In reply, the case of the Rajasthan State Electricity Board is that there is no discrimination, inasmuch as. no higher benefit has been given to the ITI certificate holders belonging to the same class as the petitioners i. e. those who were taken as apprentice in response to the advertisement (Annexure 1) dated August 15,1975 along with the petitioners. It has been admitted on behalf of the R.S.E.B. that the National Apprenticeship Certificate awarded by the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades after completion of full term of apprenticeship for a minimum period of 34 years is of a higher grade than the National Trade Certificate issued by the I T.Is. However, the petitioners' allegation of hostile discrimination has been denied. 5. Common arguments were addressed in all these petitions. Initially at the hearing of the petitions learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the higher pay scale no. 3 has been given to the apprentices holding the I. T. I. certificate who were taken in along with the petitioners while the same has been denied to the petitioners by giving them the lower pay scale no. 2. Later, learned counsel for the petitioners modified the stand on behalf of the petitioners during the course of hearing and confined the petitioners' case to being given the higher pay scale no. 3 on completion of the same length of training after which pay scale no. 3 is said to be given automatically to the I.T.I. certificate holders. 2. Later, learned counsel for the petitioners modified the stand on behalf of the petitioners during the course of hearing and confined the petitioners' case to being given the higher pay scale no. 3 on completion of the same length of training after which pay scale no. 3 is said to be given automatically to the I.T.I. certificate holders. In view of this modified stand taken at the hearing of the petitions which was not the petitioners' case set out in the petitions, we adjourned the hearing and directed the parties to file further affidavits so that this modified stand could be decided without protracting the litigation or driving the petitioners to another proceeding, in view of the fact that a large number of such apprentices are said to be affected by this decision. Both the sides have then filed further affidavits as well as documents. The petitions were then heard on the basis of further affidavits and documents also. 6. At the conclusion of the hearing of the petitions learned counsel for the petitioners reverted to the initial stand of the petitioners which he had expressly abandoned earlier during the initial course of hearing of the petitions. We would, therefore, consider both the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The initial argument of learned counsel for the petitioners to which he reverted once again at the end of hearing is that the petitioners being holders of a higher certificate than the I. T. I. certificate the petitioner should be given the higher pay scale no. 3 as has been given to the I. T. I. certificate holders according to clause (i) of para 22 of the Award dated June 15, 1979. In substance the argument is that the I. T. I. certificate holders are automatically given pay scale no. 3 after a total period of four years against pay scale no. 2 being give it to the petitioners after three years. No grievance has been made against preference for earlier practical training being given to the I. T. I. certificate holders as mentioned in the advertisement (Annex. 1) dated August 15, 1975 itself. 3 after a total period of four years against pay scale no. 2 being give it to the petitioners after three years. No grievance has been made against preference for earlier practical training being given to the I. T. I. certificate holders as mentioned in the advertisement (Annex. 1) dated August 15, 1975 itself. The other argument in the alternative is that pay scale no.3 is given automatically to the ITI certificate holders after completion of four years' total training which benefit should also be given to the petitioners on completion of the same length of training. In reply learned counsel for the respondent denied any such discrimination or the construction of the Award by the R. S. E. B. in this manner. In the further affidavit and documents filed by the petitioners during the course of hearing instances have been cited to show that in actual practice I. T. I. certificate holders have been given the benefit of the higher pay scale even though taken in as apprentice at the same time in response to the same advertisement as the petitioners. To this the reply on behalf of the R. S. E. B. is that no such action has been taken as a result of any direction of the R. S. E. B. and such instances, if any, are result of a mistake which would be examined and corrected. 8. In principle it is not disputed on behalf of the respondent R. S. E. B. that the petitioners are entitled to be treated at par with the I. T. I. certificate holders who were recruited as apprentices at the same time in response to the same advertisement (Annexure 1) dated August 15, 1975 subject only to the preference given to them as mentioned in the advertisement itself. It has also been expressly stated before its on behalf of the R. S. E. B. during the course of hearing that the instances pointed out by the petitioners would be examined and the mistakes, if any, corrected. 9. It has also been expressly stated before its on behalf of the R. S. E. B. during the course of hearing that the instances pointed out by the petitioners would be examined and the mistakes, if any, corrected. 9. In short, it has been expressly conceded on behalf of the R. S. E. B. that the petitioners who hold the National Apprenticeship certificate awarded after completion of full term apprenticeship for a minimum period of 3/4 years by the National Council for Training in Vocational Trades shall be given the same pay scale after completing the same length of practical training which is being given under the aforesaid Award dated June 15, 1979 to the I. T. I. certificate holders recruited as apprentices along with the petitioners at the same time in response to the same advertisement (Annexure 1) dated August 15, 1975. In view of this stand taken on behalf of the R. S. E. B. there is in effect no controversy surviving for determination in these petitions since it is this very equal treatment of the National Apprenticeship Certificate holders and I. T. I. certificate holders which is claimed by the petitioners themselves. It is obvious that this equal treatment to the two categories of certificate holders in the matter of pay scale has to be given to apprentices recruited at the same time in response to the same advertisement (Annexure 1) dated August 15, 1975. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners made a further attempt to enlarge the scope of the petitions on the basis of the further affidavit and documents filed by referring to specific instances and inviting us to decide the allegation of discrimination based on these freshly cited instances. We are unable to permit a further expansion of the scope of these petitions in this manner. In view of the express concession made by the R. S. E. B. as already noted that all apprentices recruited at the same time whether holding, the national apprenticeship certificate or I. T. I. certificate are entitled to be given the same pay scale after completing the same length of training, nothing survives for consideration in these petitions, since this is the only grievance made in these petitions. It would be unsafe to examine the specific instances as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of scanty material brought in during the course of hearing of the petitions in the manner aforesaid. We, therefore refrain from going into this further question suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. We may however observe that in the even of any failure on the part of the RSEB to treat all such apprentices alike as conceded by them. It would be open to the person against whom any hostile discrimination is practised to agitate the matter on the basis of RSEB's decision in this behalf thereafter. No further consideration of any matter raised in these petitions is now necessary. 11. Consequently, these petitions are allowed in the above manner and the respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board is directed to re-examine the cases of all apprentices. irrespective of the fact whether they have filed any petition or not, recruited in response to the advertisement (Annexure 1) dated August 15, 1975 and to give them equal treatment in the matter of pay scale and all other benefits in accordance with the above concession rightly made on behalf of the R. S. E. B. The examination of the cases of all such apprentices be completed for this purpose within a period of three months and the instances pointed out by the petitioners of unequal treatment be considered and decided specifically. This direction shall apply for the benefit of all apprentices like the petitioners recruited as apprentices at the same time in response to the same advertisement (Annexure 1) dated August 15, 1975, irrespective of the fact whether any grievance has been made by them or not. 12. In the circumstances of the case we direct the parties to bear their own costsPetitions disposed of. *******