Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. 1. Admittedly, petitioner has qualifying service, as stipulated in Part III of the Kerala Service Rules for the purpose of reckoning pension, only to the extent of 7 years 11 months and 25 days as calculated in Ext. P1. That includes a part time service as well. 50 % of that part time is also counted towards the seven and odd years. To be entitled for minimum pension one should have to his credit a minimum of ten years qualifying service at the time of retirement. Admittedly, petitioner falls short of that quantum of service. Consequently, he is not entitled to superannuation pension. One will be entitled to pension as provided for in Part III, of the Kerala Service Rules, provided he is having the minimum qualifying service of ten years. Petitioner now contends relying on Ext. P3 judgment that the three years period that he had served in Home Guard shall also be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of granting pension. He submits that if the said three years service also is counted he will have the minimum of ten years service and he will become entitled to minimum pension. Para 5 of Ext. P3 reads as follows: "We have carefully considered the rival submissions. We have perused Exts. P3 and P4. In our opinion, the Government, having favourably considered the two other cases referred to in Exts. P3 and P4 and other similar cases, cannot adopt a different yard stick in the case of the appellant. It is settled law that an authority is not entitled to apply different yard sticks to its employees who are similarly placed. The Government were conscious of the fact that the petitioners in the other two cases, namely, Exts. P3 and P4, were not eligible for minimum on strict application of the Rules. However, by taking into consideration their past service in Home Guard, Government had condoned the short deficiency in their qualifying service and sanctioned minimum pension on compassionate grounds. Appellant before us who is also similarly placed is entitled for a similar treatment by the Government. There cannot be any discrimination amongst the employees belonging to the same cadre of service. It is also worth noticing that Sivandan Nair and Retnakaran have also retired along with the appellant from the same Department in the same year. Appellant before us who is also similarly placed is entitled for a similar treatment by the Government. There cannot be any discrimination amongst the employees belonging to the same cadre of service. It is also worth noticing that Sivandan Nair and Retnakaran have also retired along with the appellant from the same Department in the same year. However, the Rules were relaxed only for those two persons and not to the appellant. Appellant, having failed to get a fair and equal treatment at the hands of the Government has rightly approached this Court praying for justice at the hands of this Court. In our considered view, the appellant is also entitled for equal treatment with others." 2. Petitioner, further relying on R.11 Part III, K.S.R. submits that notwithstanding the provisions contained in R.10, Government can declare any specified kind of service rendered as qualifying service for pension. 3. The word "service" used in Service Rules shall have the meaning that it shall be a civil service or serving the Government in civil capacity. In Ext. P3 the Division Bench has considered the 'past service in Home Guard'. But it is not part of Government Service. The Division Bench directed consideration of that service for reckoning qualifying service to grant pension in terms of the rules in Part III, K.S.R., as it was counted in the case of two other employees as revealed by certain exhibits produced in that Original Petition. 4. Entitlement to pension is on the basis of statutory rules. If as per the rules one is not entitled to get pension, he cannot be granted pension. Merely because, overlooking the provisions in the Kerala Service Rules, somebody else has been granted an undue advantage, that cannot be cited as discrimination. Discrimination arises when persons are considered in terms of the same set of rules and equal protections envisaged by law is denied. 5. The period that the petitioner has served as Home Guard - a voluntary organisation - cannot be treated as qualifying service for counting pension as per rules. It is not a civil service or military service. Therefore, there is no different treatment on the basis of rules so far as the petitioner is concerned and no protection of law is denied. It is not a civil service or military service. Therefore, there is no different treatment on the basis of rules so far as the petitioner is concerned and no protection of law is denied. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh (AIR 2000 SC 2306) that an undue advantage given to an individual beyond the law cannot be cited as a discrimination. Constitutional guarantee on equality is not to precipitate illegality but to perpetuate legality. "The concept of equality as envisaged under Art.14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits." 6. In the light of that view of the Supreme Court, I am unable to agree with Ext. P3 decision as extracted above. Ext. P3 proceeds only on the footing that as Government had in two earlier cases considered 'past service in Home Guard' for reckoning as qualifying service, it should be followed. But whether service in Home Guard is civil service and whether the law regulating pension enables counting of that service towards qualifying service are not seen examined at all. When one is granted payment out of State exchequer strict entitlement has to be examined. When analysed in that way and when no rule to count Home Guard Service is pointed out, I am bound to accept the pronouncement of the Apex Court as mentioned above, rather than, with great respect, Ext. P3 judgment of the Division Bench. Therefore, petitioner cannot improve his case relying Ext. P3, in the light of the Supreme Court decision cited above, to count the period he had served the Home Guard as qualifying service for granting pension. 7. More over, the period that one had served in Home Guard is only a voluntary service. When one serves an organisation voluntarily he does not expect anything in reciprocation. After having served voluntarily, in Home Guard, now the petitioner seeks reward as if that service had been rendered for pension. 8. 7. More over, the period that one had served in Home Guard is only a voluntary service. When one serves an organisation voluntarily he does not expect anything in reciprocation. After having served voluntarily, in Home Guard, now the petitioner seeks reward as if that service had been rendered for pension. 8. More over, the service in Home Guard is not a part of civil service. That cannot be, on any count, termed as qualifying service for the purpose of granting pension. No provision from Chapter II, Part III, K.S.R. is pointed out to count such service as qualifying service. R.11 in that Chapter has also no application in the petitioner's case. Even going by the said rule, Government can declare only a specified service as qualifying service for pension. That shall be service in Government or under Government and that too taking into consideration the individual aspects of each case as mentioned in sub-r. (2). Hence the Original Petition fails. It is dismissed.