JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th March, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP (T) No. 2519 of 2008, titled Shri Gurbax Singh versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition came to be dismissed, hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’. 2. It appears that the writ petitioner had filed Original Application 938 of 1995 before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), which on its abolition, was transferred to this Court and came to be diarized as CWP (T) No. 2519 of 2008. 3. The petitioner had sought quashment of order dated 19th November, 1994, which was outcome of legal notice issued by the petitioner on 12th November, 1993. It is apt to record herein that the petitioner has not questioned his pay fixation (Annexure P-2), till 1990. Thus, the claim of the petitioner is belated. 4. The petitioner has taken the benefit in terms of Rule 2 of the Demobilized Armed Forces Personnel Rules, 1972, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’, cannot make U-turn and plead that he is a fresh appointee. If he is a fresh appointee, he is not entitled to the main relief in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules. 5. The respondents have specifically given details in their reply. It is apt to reproduce paras -3, 6(b) and 6(d) of the reply to the writ petition herein:- “3. That the application against the order is not maintainable. It is submitted that the benefit of these advance increments is only admissible to a fresh entrant and not to a person who is already in service or who has been given the benefit of past service. Since the applicant has been extended the benefit of his past military service, therefore, he cannot be extended the benefit of two advance increments as he cannot be considered afresh appointee. Therefore, he does not deserve the benefit of three advance increments and the fixation made is thus correct. 4, 5 & 6(A) 6(B) That at the initial appointment, the benefit of advance increments was given. The case of the applicant is different. Since his past military service was counted, he cannot be said to be a fresh entrant. Hence the contention is wholly misleading, irrational and illogical. 4, 5 & 6(A) 6(B) That at the initial appointment, the benefit of advance increments was given. The case of the applicant is different. Since his past military service was counted, he cannot be said to be a fresh entrant. Hence the contention is wholly misleading, irrational and illogical. 6(C) …………………… 6(D) That the benefit of three advance increments is allowed on the minimum of the scale of Rs. 570/- on 15.9.78. But the basic pay of the applicant has arisen to Rs. 680/- as on 15.9.78. He cannot be allowed the benefit of three advance increments on Rs. 680.- as contended.” 6. Having said so, we are of the considered view that the Writ Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment. No interference is required. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.