Judgment :- (ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) 1. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.7.2010 passed by the second respondent in O.A. No.11 of 2010, whereby the said application was allowed. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of the writ petition, are that the applicant/first respondent herein has been working as Junior Engineer (Civil). On 18.8.2009 at about 2.30 p.m., while he was in office, he was assaulted by one of his co-employees viz. Seenivasan and hence he received injuries on nose and left knee and took treatment in the Hindu Mission Hospital, Tambaram. While undergoing treatment, the first respondent made a request for grant of medical leave i.e. special disability leave vide representation dated 28.9.2009 under Rule 44 of CCS Leave Rules, but the same was rejected by the second petitioner. The further representation made by the first respondent to the first petitioner was also rejected. Hence the first respondent filed O.A. No.11 of 2010 before the second respondent. 3. The Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 23.7.2010, allowed the application on the ground that not only from the complaint of the first respondent but also from the show cause notice issued by the petitioners, it is clearly seen that the quarrel took place in the office premises, during office hours, in which the first respondent was beaten by the coemployee due to which he received injuries on his nose and left knee and underwent treatment and hence the first respondents claim for disability leave as provided under Rule 44 of Leave Rules is squarely attractive. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials available on record. 5. We are unable to agree with the reasons adopted by the Tribunal while setting aside the order of the second petitioner dated 14.10.2009, which was confirmed by the first petitioner by order dated 23.11.2009. On 18.8.2009, the first respondent was on leave on which date, the incident took place wherein he sustained injury and underwent treatment. Nothing is explained as to why he entered the office when he was on leave and under what circumstances, the quarrel took place between the first respondent and one Seenivasan, a co-employee, who inflicted injuries on the first respondent. 6. Nothing is explained as to why he entered the office when he was on leave and under what circumstances, the quarrel took place between the first respondent and one Seenivasan, a co-employee, who inflicted injuries on the first respondent. 6. A reading of Rule 44 of the Leave Rules would make it abundantly clear that this is not a case where the first respondent sustained injury in connection with his official duty. Moreover, he was on leave on the said date, as seen from the typed set of papers. But the Tribunal mis-understood the matter that the first respondent sustained injury while he was in office in the hands of a co-employee and came to the wrong conclusion that the incident occurred within the scope of Rule 44 of the Leave Rules. For better appreciation, Rule 44 of the Leave Rules is extracted here under:- "(44.) Special disability leave for injury intentionally inflicted:- (1) The authority competent to grant leave may grant special disability leave to a Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) who is disabled by injury intentionally inflicted or caused in, or in consequence of the due performance of his official duties or in consequence of his official position. (2) Such leave shall not be granted unless the disability manifested itself within three months of the occurrence to which it is attributed and the person disabled acted with due promptitude in bringing it to notice. Provided that the authority competent to grant leave may, if it is satisfied as to the cause of the disability, permit leave to be granted in cases where the disability manifested itself more than three months after the occurrence of its cause. (3) The period of leave granted shall be such as is certified by an Authorized Medical Attendant and shall in no case exceed 24 months. (4) Special disability leave may be combined with leave of any other kind. (5) Special disability leave may be granted more than once if the disability is aggravated or reproduced in similar circumstances at later date, but not more than 24 months of such leave shall be granted in consequence of any one disability. (6) Special disability leave shall be counted as duty in calculating service for pension and shall not, except the leave granted under the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub -rule (7) be debited against the leave account. (6) Special disability leave shall be counted as duty in calculating service for pension and shall not, except the leave granted under the proviso to Clause (b) of Sub -rule (7) be debited against the leave account. (7) Leave salary during such leave shall - (a) for the first 120 days of any period of such leave, including a period of such leave granted under sub-rule (5), be equal to leave salary while on earned leave; and (b) for the remaining period of any such leave, be equal to leave salary during half pay leave; Provided that a Government servant may, at his option, be allowed leave salary as in sub-rule (a) for a period not exceeding another 120 days, and in the event the period of such leave shall be debited to his half pay leave account. Note - Leave salary in respect of special disability leave granted to a Government Servant who has rendered service under more than one Government may be apportioned between the Governments in accordance with the normal rules. 8(a) In the case of a person to whom the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), applies, the amount of leave salary payable under this rule shall be reduced by the amount of compensation payable under Clause (d) of sub -section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. (b) In the case of a person to whom the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), applies, the amount of leave salary payable under this rule shall be reduced by the amount of benefit payable under the said Act for the corresponding period. 9(a) The provisions of this rule shall also apply- (i) to a civil Government servant disabled in consequence of service with a military force, if he is discharged as unfit for further military military service, but is not completely and permanently incapacitated for further civil service; and (ii) to a civil servant not so discharged who suffers a disability which is certified by a Medical Board to be directly attributable to his service with a military force." 7. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the case of the first respondent is not within the purview of Section 44 of the Leave Rules since he was on leave on the particular date on which the incident occurred. Moreover, it is purely a private quarrel between a co-employee viz. A reading of the above provision makes it clear that the case of the first respondent is not within the purview of Section 44 of the Leave Rules since he was on leave on the particular date on which the incident occurred. Moreover, it is purely a private quarrel between a co-employee viz. Seenivasan and the first respondent. In view of the same, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. Consequently, the connected M.P. is closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.