Judgment Gyan Sudha Misra, J.-All these petitioners herein have sought a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order on direction to the respondents for granting advance increments on completion often years of service after taking into account the period which they had spent as an apprentice. The admitted case of the parties is that the petitioners were initially appointed as apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 and after satisfactory services under the Apprenticeship Act, they were appointed on regular basis under the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (RSEB. for short) Ministerial Staff Regulations, 1962. Consequently they became members of the service of the RSEB from the date of their appointment on regular basis. However, the petitioners have claimed that their length of service of 10 years will be computed from the date of their appointment as an apprentice and hence, they have claimed that since they have completed 10 years of service on September 1, 1986, the respondents are tinder an obligation to give them an advance increment from Septmber 1, 1986 according to their own order. 2. The case of the petitioners is unrepresented in this Court, but the claim as laid down in the writ petition is contested on behalf of the respondents and, in support of this case, it has been stated that the petitioners are entitled for incre- merit only on completion often years of service which will be counted from the date of their regular appointment in terms of the RESB Regulations, 1962 and not from the date from which they were appointed as apprentice. According to the respondents, the date of appointments as apprentice is not the date of their appointment under the Regulations of 1962 and hence the services rendered by the petitioners as apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act, 1963 cannot be taken into considerations while counting their service under the Ministerial Staff Regulations 1962 for granting any benefit. 3. According to the respondents, the date of appointments as apprentice is not the date of their appointment under the Regulations of 1962 and hence the services rendered by the petitioners as apprentice under the Apprenticeship Act, 1963 cannot be taken into considerations while counting their service under the Ministerial Staff Regulations 1962 for granting any benefit. 3. In support of the plea of the respondents’ it has next been submitted that under the Act of 1961, as per Section 11, the employer is under an obligation to provide appenticeship training and during the period of training, the apprentice is entitled only to a stipend which is prescribed, from time to time and, as such, the service rendered by the petitioners in the said capacity cannot be taken into consideration for grant of advance increment under the Rajasthan Civil Service ( Revised Pay Scales) Rules 1987 which the petitioners claim. It has further been clarified that at some point of time a doubt was raised whether the period of pre-service training under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961 is to be counted for the purpose of computing continuous service under Rule 4 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 and the clarification was given to the following effect: “The period of pre-service training under Apprenticeship Act, 1961 shall not be taken into account for the purpose of computing continuous service under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1987. The period of training rendered after appointment on a regular sanctioned post shall only be counted for the purpose of computing continuous service under Rule 14 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987.” 4. On behalf of the respondents, it has also been submitted that the “duty” defined under Regulation 3 of the RSEB Employees Service Regulations has absolutely no concern in respect of grant of advance increment under the Rajas- than Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, l987since the definition of duty under Rule 3 is for an altogether different purpose and since the increments are granted and are admissible to the employees under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 and under these Rules, apprenticeship period is not required to be counted for the purpose of grant of advance increment, hence the claim of the petitioners is not sustainable. 5. 5. Inso far as the claim of the petitioners on the ground that they have been discriminated since similarly situated persons were granted such benefit is concerned it has been clarified that the benefit of increments which were illegally granted to some employees of the RSEB were withdrawn and an order of recovery had been passed against them. The employees working at Udaipur who were granted such increments filed a writ petition in this High Court before the Principal seat at Jodhpur. A final order was passed therein directing the respondent RSEB to order for recovery only after granting them opportunity of hearing. Hence, the said direction cannot operate as a precedant to claim increment and the Court interfered only on the limited ground of violation of principle of natural justice. 6. Having considered the plea raised on behalf of the contesting panes, I find force in the submission of the respondent RSEB as it has been rightly urged that the period of apprentice-ship is not required to be counted as a period of continuous service under Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987. It may be noted that the petitioners prior to their appointment in the RSEB had been employed in an altogether different capacity as apprentice trainee and during the said period they were merely entitled for stipend and were not even getting the regular pay scale. This obviously was a clear indication to the employees that their services which they rendered as apprentice were merely in the form of training period and hence it cannot be said that the duties discharged by them in the said capacity was part of the regular service under the Regulations. Hence, this period has rightly not been reckoned for computing ten years service which would have made the petitioners entitled for advance increment. The petitioners, therefore, have rightly not been held entitled to claim the benefit of advance increment on the basis of service rendered in the capacity as apprentice. 7. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed without costs.