period, the quarter is to be allotted to the next person in the priority list. If the allotment was not made to the next person in the priority list for the delay on the part of the petitioners in making such allotment on expiry of 15 days, the person who has refused, it cannot be said that there would be non-payment of the HRA, beyond that period of 15 days, on the ground that on expiry of 15 days it was not offered to the next person in the priority list or that next person refused to occupy the same. If the next person was offered and also failed to occupy the same, the non-payment of HRA would relate to that next person. So, we are of the view after going through the above proceedings, that an employee can be denied HRA for a period of 15 days if there is allotment and he failed to occupy the same. The clarification in letter dated 07.05.2010, clause (iv) supports the view which we are taking inasmuch as it says that once the accommodation is allotted to some other entitled person and occupied by him/her, then naturally the person, who had refused the accommodation initially, is entitled to apply for accommodation once again; and till such time as accommodation is again offered to him/her, he/she can draw HRA. By the said clarification, the previous condition imposed in the letter dated 14.01.2009 that
