Judgment :- 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner has filed O.A.No.8307 of 1997, seeking to challenge the order of the second respondent, dated 12. 1997 and also the order of the first respondent, dated 16. 1997. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this court and was renumbered as W.P.No.37877 of 2006. On behalf of the respondents, a reply affidavit, dated 212. 1998 was filed, justifying the impugned order. 4. The petitioner was working as a Ranger and he retired on superannuation on 28.02.1997. While he was working in the Hosur Roving Check post, he applied for 2 days casual leave on 8. 1994 and 8. 1994. On the expiry of the casual leave, the petitioner proceeded on medical leave on the advice of his physician. The medical leave started from 8. 1994 lasted till 26. 1995, i.e. nearly for a period of 323 days. The petitioner was sent for examination by the Medical Board. The Medical Board, by its letter, dated 29. 1996, recommended leave. On return to duty, he joined service on 30.6.1995. Subsequently, the petitioner requested the respondent to treat the leave period from 8. 94 to 30.06.95 as a special disability leave in terms of FR 83. The Rule provides for the Government to grant a special disability leave, if he is disabled by an injury intentionally inflicted or caused or in consequence of due performance of his official duties or in consequence of his official position. 5. The petitioner was not given such a concession. On the contrary, major portion of the leave was treated as an extraordinary leave with medical certificate. The petitioners letter addressed to the Chief Minister Grievance Cell was sent for appropriate action by the first respondent. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 16. 97 rejected the said request. 6. In justification of the said order, the respondents have made the following averments in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the reply affidavit, which reads as follows: "9. It is submitted that the applicant has addressed the Chief Ministers Cell in his application dated 4. 97 for considering his case to treat the leave period from 3. 94 to 30.5.95 as special disability leave. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in his Ref.No.82/20338/97, dated 16. It is submitted that the applicant has addressed the Chief Ministers Cell in his application dated 4. 97 for considering his case to treat the leave period from 3. 94 to 30.5.95 as special disability leave. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in his Ref.No.82/20338/97, dated 16. 97 has rejected the applicants request and confirmed that the applicant is not entitled for special disability leave as per Fundamental Rule 83 and 83A based on the recommendation of the Medical Board that the applicant was suffering from Diabetes Millitus with gangrene left log and reunit infections during the leave period availed by him from 8. 94 to 111. 94 and from 22. 93 to 26. 93. 10. It is submitted that proposal was sent to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests who is competent to sanction of Special disability leave as requested by the applicant in Chennai Conservator of Forests Ref.No.E2/1524/96, dated 27. 96 since the power of sanctioning of special disability leave is vested with the head of department. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests who is the head of department, thoroughly examined the case with reference to the recommendation of the Medical Board which recommended to act as per rules to sanction leave on medical grounds. There was application of mind on the part of the respondents, while issuing orders as per rules and based on the recommendation of the Medical Board." 7. Though the petitioner suffering due to diabetes and that too with Gangrene foot can be labelled as disability, but the Rule 83 speaks about the special disability. Such a leave can be conferred only if there was an injury intentionally inflicted or caused due to performance of official duty or in consequence of his official position. Unless the petitioner establishes his disablement arose out of such contingencies, the question of giving direction to the Government to confer a particular type of leave does not vest with this Court. 8. In the light of the explanation offered by the respondents, there is no case made out. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.