JUDGMENT Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral) This writ petition is filed questioning the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No.92 of 2007 dated 27.07.2012. 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner herein was appointed as a Forester on 11.01.1971 in the pay scale of Rs.100-180. He was promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger in the pay scale of Rs.250-425 vide proceedings dated 26.10.1977. He was thereafter promoted, along with others, to the post of Forest Ranger vide proceedings dated 11.04.1979. He was, sanctioned, one increment in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 vide order dated 27.08.1991 pursuant to Government Order dated 03.06.1989. He was again sanctioned the promotional pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 by the order of Chief Conservator of Forests dated 29.03.1997. The petitioner was sanctioned his first promotional pay scale on 25.05.1998 vide order dated 02.08.2002; and the second promotional/next pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200 w.e.f. 25.05.2003 after completion of 24 years of service, by the order of the Chief Conservator of Forests dated 01.08.2003. The petitioner's grievance is that the Chief Conservator of Forests, Dehradun had, vide order dated 19.06.2007, cancelled the selection/ promotional pay scales sanctioned earlier to the petitioner on the ground that the pay scale was wrongly sanctioned to him, and he was not entitled thereto. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 06.07.2007 but to no avail. Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No.207 of 2007 before this Court which was dismissed by order dated 10.08.2007 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner, thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of the Public Services Tribunal. 4. 3. The petitioner submitted a representation on 06.07.2007 but to no avail. Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No.207 of 2007 before this Court which was dismissed by order dated 10.08.2007 on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner, thereafter, invoked the jurisdiction of the Public Services Tribunal. 4. In the order under challenge in this writ petition dated 27.07.2012, the Tribunal held that the first order which was quashed related to the grant of increments to the petitioner from 25.05.1990 in compliance with para 9 the Government order dated 03.06.1989; the case of the respondent was that, as per the said Government order dated 03.06.1989, this facility was not admissible to the petitioner because he had already been promoted from the post of Forester to the post of Deputy Ranger, and again from the post of Deputy Ranger to the post of Ranger; he had already got two promotions in his career; the Government Order dated 03.06.1989 prescribed the procedure to be followed in fixing the pay in the new pay scales, and to make available the selection grade admissible to employees, and how the pay was to be fixed in the selection grade; the said Government order was regarding fixation of pay in the revised pay scale w.e.f 01.01.1986; para 9 of the said G.O. related to employees who were getting selection grade, and who would be provided selection grade as per this Government Order; the said grade was provided to certain categories of government employees vide Government Order dated 04.02.1983; para 1 of the said Government Order stipulated that, to overcome the problem of stagnation, the posts mentioned in Annexure-1, were being given the benefits provided in Annexure- 5. After extracting the posts mentioned in Annexure-1 of the Government Order, the Tribunal observed that, a perusal of the said list, showed that the selection grade had been made admissible to a selected class of employees, who were mainly office staff and lower category staff of skilled and unskilled labour; and they did not include field staff or senior supervisory staff; the names of Foresters, Deputy Rangers, and Range Officers did not find mention in the said list; the petitioner was not entitled to selection grade in terms of the Government Order dated 04.02.1983; hence the question of re-fixation of pay in the selection grade, as per Government Order dated 03.06.1989, did not arise; para 9 of the said G.O. is not applicable to the petitioner's case; and, therefore, he was wrongly awarded selection grade w.e.f. 25.05.1990. 6. The Tribunal further held, with regards the petitioner's entitlement to be admitted to selection grade on completion of 10 years, 14 years, 19 years and 24 years of service, that the respondents had filed a letter of the Government of Uttarakhand dated 26.12.2006, which revealed that the policy of the Government was for an employee to be given a minimum of two promotions, or two time pay scales, in their entire service career; after getting two promotions, the time scale was not admissible; the said State Government order made it clear that an employee, who got one promotion and one promotional scale or who had got two promotions, would not be entitled to selection grade/time scale of pay etc. as he had already obtained two promotions; and the petitioner was not entitled to the selection grade, after his promotion to the post of Range Officer, as he had secured two promotions from the post of Forester. 7. The Tribunal, thereafter, observed that the impugned order would entail recovery of the excess salary paid to the petitioner for more than 24 years. Following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Nath Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006(5) ALJ, 406, and the Supreme Court in Baleshwar Dass and others Vs. 7. The Tribunal, thereafter, observed that the impugned order would entail recovery of the excess salary paid to the petitioner for more than 24 years. Following the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Nath Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006(5) ALJ, 406, and the Supreme Court in Baleshwar Dass and others Vs. State of U.P. and Others (1980) 4 SCC 226 and G.C. Gupta and others vs. N.K. Pandey and Others (1988) 1 SCC 316 , and others judgments, the tribunal held that, since the excess amount of salary paid to the petitioner was not because of any act of theirs, no recovery of the excess salary paid to the petitioner shall be made. The Claim Petition was partly allowed. The Tribunal, however, held that there was no ground to set aside the impugned order, and the respondents were free to fix the pension and other retiral benefits, of the petitioner, as per the prescribed pay scales. 8. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's entitlement for the promotional pay scales is required to be computed from the date of the last promotion; since the petitioner was promoted as a Ranger on 11.04.1979, he was, entitled to be sanctioned the promotional pay scale, 10 years thereafter, in 1989; he was, consequently, entitled to be paid the selection grade pay scale w.e.f. from 25.05.2003; he was rightly granted these benefits; the subsequent proceedings dated 19.06.2007, cancelling the selection/promotional pay scale sanctioned to the petitioner earlier, was wholly illegal; even otherwise, during the pendency of proceedings before the Public Services Tribunal, the State Government had issued G.O. dated 08.03.2011; the petitioner was entitled to be granted benefits under the accelerated career progression scheme in terms of the proceedings issued by the Government during the pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal; the petitioner should have been extended the said benefit; after the OA was disposed of, persons, similar situated as that of the petitioner, were extended similar benefits which was upheld by the Tribunal; the petitioner has been singled out for adverse treatment, and has been discriminated against; and the petitioner ought to have been promoted as an Assistant Conservator of Forests and, thereafter, as the Divisional Forest Officer; and he was illegally denied promotion to these posts. 9. On the other hand Mr. 9. On the other hand Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, would submit that the scope of interference, in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is extremely limited; it is only if the order of the Tribunal suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of record would interference be justified; the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for rejecting the petitioner's claim to have the order, impugned in the claim petition, set aside; this Court would not sit in appeal over the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal; the petitioner's claim for ACP benefits, based on the proceedings issued by the Government during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal, was not in issue before the Tribunal; no such relief had also been sought in the claim petition filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal; and, in such circumstances, no interference is called for with respect to the order passed by the Public Services Tribunal, the validity which alone is impugned in the present writ petition. 10. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner's entitlement to be granted promotional pay scales is in terms of the Government Order dated 03.06.1989. The said Government Order relates to fixation of pay in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986. In terms thereof, selection grade is provided to certain cadres of Government Employees in terms of the Government Order dated 04.02.1983. Annexure-1 of the said G.O. dated 04.02.1983 enumerates the posts for which alone the benefit of selection grade is to be extended. As rightly held by Public Services Tribunal, and which has also not been disputed before us, the posts of Forester, Deputy Ranger and Ranger Officer do not find mention in the list of posts referred to in Annexure-1 to the Government Order dated 04.02.1983; and, consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to the selection grade in terms of the said Government Order dated 04.02.1983. 11. 11. With regards the petitioner's claim to be extended selection grade on completion of 10 years, 14 years, 19 years and 24 years of services, is concerned, the Tribunal referred to the letter of the Government of Uttarakhand dated 26.12.2006 in terms of which a policy decision was taken to extend the benefit of selection grade only to such of those employees who were not granted two promotions, or were not granted one promotion and one promotional pay scale; in the present case, the petitioner had been promoted from the post of Forester to the post of Deputy Ranger on 26.10.1977, he was again promoted to the post of Forest Ranger by proceedings dated 11.04.1979; and, since he had already received two promotions, he was not entitled either for selection grade or for the promotional pay scale in terms of the Government Order referred to hereinabove. 12. We find no error, much less an error of law apparent on face of record in the order of the Tribunal, justifying interference in certiorari proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's claim for parity with other employees, his claim to be promoted as an Assistant Conservator of Forest and thereafter as the Divisional Forest Officer, and his claim to be extended the benefit of the assured career progression scheme in terms of the letter dated 08.03.2011, were not the subject matter of challenge in the proceedings before the Public Services Tribunal, and were not put in issue before the Tribunal. It is the validity of the order of the Tribunal, within the limited parameters of judicial review in certiorari proceedings, which is under examination in this writ petition Since the aforesaid claims were not even made before the Tribunal, the validity of such claims cannot be examined in this writ petition where the order of the Public Services Tribunal is alone subjected to challenge. The Tribunal has, adequately, secured the petitioner's interest by directing the respondents not to recover the excess amount paid to him till the impugned order dated 19.06.2007 was passed. Since the respondents have chosen not to challenge the order of the Tribunal, the said order, to the extent the respondents have been restrained from recovering the excess amount, paid to the petitioner, has attained finality. 13. While we see no reason to examine the claim put forth on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Since the respondents have chosen not to challenge the order of the Tribunal, the said order, to the extent the respondents have been restrained from recovering the excess amount, paid to the petitioner, has attained finality. 13. While we see no reason to examine the claim put forth on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Advocate, for the first time in this writ petition, suffice it to make it clear that, since these are all not matters for examination in the present writ proceedings, the order now passed by us shall not disable the petitioner from ventilating his grievance, with respect to such claims, in accordance with law in appropriate legal proceedings. 14. The writ petition, however, fails and, is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.