JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Goswami 1. Heard Mr. Supu Jamir Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that he was enlisted as a Constable under Assam Police in A.P. Battalion in the year 1954 and was transferred from Sibsagar to Nagaland some time in the year 1961-62 and thereafter when Nagaland attained Statehood on 1-12-1963, he was allowed to serve in Nagaland Police and was also awarded an inauguration medal. In the year 1969, his mother having expired, he submitted an application to the Superintendent of Police, Dimapur for voluntary retirement from service. He was also furnished with a letter by the said office, the contents of which he was not aware of but presumed that it was an order permitting him to go on voluntary retirement. He has also lost his service documents and belongings in a fire that took place on 3-3-1987. He filed a representation dated 12-6-2004 praying for pensionary benefits and other service entitlements. No response having been forthcoming, the present approach before this Court is made by means of this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The State Respondents have filed an affidavit stating that no one by name of Chumsumo Lotha, which happens to be the name of the writ Petitioner, ever served in the Nagaland State at any point of time and that there was one person by the name of Chamchamo Lotha, who was transferred to District Executive Force, Kohima from District Executive Force, Nagaon, Assam, who was then allotted Regimental No. 290 by the Superintendent of Police, Kohima and posted to Kohima by an order dated 2-9-1961. The inauguration medal was also awarded in the name of Chumchamo Lotha. It has also been stated in the affidavit that in the year 1969, there was no establishment of the office of the Superintendent of Police in Dimapur and that there was only a Police Station headed by one Inspector of Police. Shri Chamchamo Lotha was transferred to Dimapur Court on 18-9-1962, who was thereafter, transferred to Mokokchung Court on 12-1-1965. It has also been emphasized that in the year 1969 there was no provision for voluntary pension and the same was introduced only in the year 1972. 4. Mr. Shri Chamchamo Lotha was transferred to Dimapur Court on 18-9-1962, who was thereafter, transferred to Mokokchung Court on 12-1-1965. It has also been emphasized that in the year 1969 there was no provision for voluntary pension and the same was introduced only in the year 1972. 4. Mr. Supu Jamir, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is entitled to pension and other service benefits and the same has been illegally denied to him and therefore, the delay notwithstanding, this Court ought to make appropriate direction to the Respondent authorities to release his pension and other entitlements. Drawing attention to the affidavit sworn by the Petitioner on 20-10-2008 which is annexed as Annexure-A to the Affidavit-in-Reply, he submits that his name was inserted as Chamchamo Lotha or Chumchamo Lotha in service records and therefore, there is no confusion with regard to the identity of the Petitioner. 5. Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that in the factual matrix of this case, the delay of 37 years in approaching this Court is a very relevant consideration. She has submitted that the Petitioner has miserably failed to establish that he was ever employed under the Government of Nagaland or for that matter, under the State of Assam. It is also her contention that assuming that Chamchamo Lotha and Chumsumo Lotha are one and same person, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits or other service benefits inasmuch as he had left service in the year 1969 without any valid order of discharge from service. She also points out that while the Petitioner had contended that he was transferred from Sibsagar to Nagaland, Chamchamo Lotha was transferred from District Executive Force, Nowgong and as such, the Petitioner has taken recourse to falsehood. According to her, the Petitioner is also guilty of falsehood in respect of his statement that he had submitted an application for voluntary retirement to the Superintendent of Police, Dimapur when there was no Superintendent of Police in Dimapur as Dimapur was under the jurisdiction of Superintendent of Police, Kohima at the relevant point of time. 6. In view of the gross delay of 37 years in approaching this Court and also because of the inherent contradiction and misleading statements, she submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. 6. In view of the gross delay of 37 years in approaching this Court and also because of the inherent contradiction and misleading statements, she submits that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. There is no plausible explanation furnished by the Petitioner for the delay of 37 years in approaching this Court. Apart from that, the Petitioner has not been able to prove by placing any reliable materials on record that he was indeed an employee of either the State of Assam or the State of Nagaland. It is also not clear as to under what circumstances the Petitioner left service in the year 1969. According to his own admission, he was not in service from the year 1969. 8. The plea taken by the Petitioner that he lost his documents in fire in the year 1987 is also not inspiring inasmuch as with regard to the Annexure-B document dated 17-8-2004, issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Fire Station, Dimapur certifying that the house of ex-serviceman Jonchumo Lotha was burnt down completely by fire including his service document on 3-3-1987, an enquiry was conducted by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Dimapur and such enquiry revealed that the name of Shri Jonchumo Lotha was not mentioned in the list of victims and that the Officer-in-Charge, Fire Station, Dimapur had issued the certificate on request without referring to the records. 9. The Petitioner has miserably failed to lay before this Court materials demonstrating that he was in employment of the State of Nagaland. How he left service is also quite uncertain and the Petitioner has made vague statements without giving any material particulars and whatever particulars he had furnished is also belied by the stand taken by the Respondents. In these circumstances, the question of delay of 37 years before approaching this Court cannot be glossed over. 10. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of relief as prayed for. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed