Santosh Kumari vs. State of H.P. & Ors. CWP No. 17511 of 2026. 05.10.2026 Present: Mr. Viabhav Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 3-State. Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate, for respondent No.4. CWP No. 17511 of 2026. Petitioner's husband, late Shri Bhim Singh, had to his credit 9 years, 7 months and 16 days of regular service. Pension was not released in his favour as he did not have qualifying service of regular service of 10 years. Petitioner places reliance upon Rule 9.29 of Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to the State of H.P.) and more specifically sub-rule (2) thereof, for condoning shortfall in the requisite qualifying service for the purpose of pension. Notice. Mr. Sikander Bhushan, learned Deputy Advocate General and Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, learned counsel appear and waive service of notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively. Reply/instructions be filed within two weeks. List thereafter. CMP No. 26065 of 2026. Dismissed as not pressed. Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge 5th October, 2026. (Jai)