Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioners are now working as teachers in Government Schools. They did have, prior to commencement of Government service, approved service in aided school. That service is not counted for increment to be drawn in Government service. Their pay had been fixed to the minimum in the pay scale. Thereafter, they made representation before the Government stating about the orders passed by the Government permitting grant of service benefits taking into account the service put in aided schools. That was answered in Ext. P5 stating that the order relied on by the petitioners has been cancelled as per Ext. P7 order. In Ext. P5 Government Order it is stated that as per G.O.(P) No. 2196/99/Fin. dated 9.11.1999 Government have ordered to keep G.O.(P) No. 1480/99/Fin. dated 17.6.1999 in abeyance until further orders and hence at present there is no rules/ orders to protect the pay drawn in aided school service on getting appointment in the Government Service. In Ext. P7 it is stated that the amount drawn on the strength of the above Government Order shall be recovered. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioners have challenged Ext. P5 order rejecting their claim and Ext. P7 order, cancelling the order which according to the petitioner permitted counting of aided school service for the purpose of reckoning increment in the Government service. 2. The increment payable in a particular time scale for Government servant is governed by Rr. 31,32 and 33 of Part I of Kerala Service Rules. The said Rules does not provide for counting of aided school service for granting increment after commencement of Government service in the respective time scale. No rule is pointed out to enable such counting of service rendered in aided school. The only contention urged before me is relying on Exts. P1, P2, P4, those are orders issued granting the benefit of increment reckoning the aided school services in the case of others. Relying on those orders the petitioners contended that there is violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Art.14 of the Constitution of India protects all persons from discrimination shown by the State organs and it prohibits unequal treatment of equal persons. Petitioner relied on the decision reported in Aleyamma George v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 748). 3. I am unable to accept this contention. Art.14 of the Constitution of India protects all persons from discrimination shown by the State organs and it prohibits unequal treatment of equal persons. Petitioner relied on the decision reported in Aleyamma George v. State of Kerala (1991 (2) KLT 748). 3. I am unable to accept this contention. Increment is a financial benefit payable to a servant from the public exchequer. It can be granted only if law permits. Rr. 31, 32 and 33 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules do not allow to reckon the aided school service for the purpose of grant of increment after commencement of Government service. Naturally no amount can be drawn by the petitioners from the public exchequer when the rule does not permit. Merely because the Government had committed irregularity by passing Exts. PI, P2 and P4, the petitioners do not get any right nor can they contend that there is discrimination. The facts which led to the decision cited above was with respect to relaxation from the qualification, which is permitted by rules, in appropriate circumstances. When persons similarly situated are treated differently by the Government to give relaxation only to few naturally there shall arise discrimination. The amount to be paid from the treasury shall always be based on entitlement. Perhaps similarly placed persons might have been given certain undue benefits which are not payable as per rules. The Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Briji Bihari Prasad Singh (JT 2000 (5) SC 389) has held that the irregularity or illegality cannot be cited as a point of discrimination because discrimination arises only when persons are denied protection of law and not to get something other than what is entitled as per law. That will necessarily result in perpectuation of illegality. Therefore, in this case it cannot be contended, on the strength of Exts. P1, . P2 and P4, so long as there is no entitlement, counting service put in aided school to draw increment while in Government service, that there is discrimination to offend Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Therefore, Ext. P5 is perfectly justified. Challenge against Ext. P7 also therefore cannot be accepted. True Government had issued an order Ext. P6 to count the aided school service for certain benefits. But that is not a statutory mandate. As already stated grant of increment is covered by rules. 4. Therefore, Ext. P5 is perfectly justified. Challenge against Ext. P7 also therefore cannot be accepted. True Government had issued an order Ext. P6 to count the aided school service for certain benefits. But that is not a statutory mandate. As already stated grant of increment is covered by rules. In such circumstances the Government is perfectly justified to keep in abeyance the orders so issued in terms of rules. Therefore, the challenge against Ext. P7 is also not substantiated. But the amount if any paid on misunderstanding of the provisions by the authorities cannot be recovered. The pay can at the same time be scaled down reducing the irregular increments granted. Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.