ORDER : HARINATH. N, J. The petitioners are seeking a declaration of the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in absorbing the petitioners as illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners 1 to 3 are not pressing the writ petition. The petitioners 4 and 5 are pursuing the writ petition. 2. The 4th petitioner was working as Office Attender since the 5th year 1999 and the petitioner was working as an Attender since the year 1994. The petitioners were informed not to attend duties from July, 1999 on the pretext that there is no work available for the petitioners. The petitioners were engaged on temporary basis. 3. The petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner of Labour who had convened a joint meeting and admonished the respondents for having directing the petitioners not to attend duties without following the due process of law. The respondents thereafter reengaged the petitioners from 13.08.1999. 4. The workmen formed a trade union and registered it as Gas Authority of India Contract Employees Union, Rajahmundry. The Union raised several demands and settlement was reached with the intervention of Assistant Commissioner on 15.03.2000. The Cooperative Society was agreed to introduce and 4th respondent was formed. The Job contract was awarded to the 4th respondent and the petitioners were continued as Contract Labour through the 4th respondent. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the payment of salaries and entrustment of work is by the 3rd respondent. As such, the 4th respondent is only set up to evade regularizing the petitioners and ultimately the petitioners were asked not come duty from 20.10.2004 onwards. Such illegal action is challenged in the present writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioners are contract labour deployed by the 4th respondent/contractor. The contract labour cannot seek a direction for regularization with the principle employer. It is also submitted that the 3rd respondent being a public sector undertaking has its own procedure for recruitment for employees. It is also submitted that the petitioners were engaged by the 4th respondent subject to availability of work and that there is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioners and 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent also filed a counter reiterating that there is no direct employer and employee relation amongst the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3. It is also submitted that the petitioners were engaged by the 4th respondent subject to availability of work and that there is no employer and employee relationship between the petitioners and 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent also filed a counter reiterating that there is no direct employer and employee relation amongst the petitioners and the respondents 1 to 3. It is also submitted that they are deployed through the 4th respondent to work wherever there is a need of such manpower. The petitioners claim for regularization on the basis of the memorandum of settlement dated 15.03.2000 between the management of the respondents 1 to 3 and the employees union. 7. As seen from the said memorandum of settlement there is no annexure as to who are the members of the union as on that date i.e., 15.03.2000. There is a specific mention at Clause 8.8.3 that such workmen who are not providing services presently are not deemed to be the members of society and will have no claim in respect of the provisions of the settlement. It is not known as to whether the petitioners were working as on the date of settlement. The statement showing the contract technicians dated 20.10.1999 and the annexure is neither attested nor an authentic copy is filed. Thus, this Court is not inclined to rely on the said document. The respondents have specifically denied that the petitioners were engaged by the respondents 1 to 3 at any point of time. There is also no document which is placed on record to substantiate the averment that the respondents 1 to 3 were paying salaries to the petitioners. The petitioners have filed a reply to the counter, however, have brought in the certificate issued by the Special Deputy Collector (L.A.) and Competent Authority, the same would not come to the aid of the petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the settlement dated 02.09.2021 and supplement settlement dated 08.09.2022. The petitioners placed reliance on the certificate issued by Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition dated 07.01.2003, wherein the names of the petitioners reflect as working in the respondents 1 to 3 organization since 1997 and 1994 respectively. 9. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the settlement dated 02.09.2021 and supplement settlement dated 08.09.2022. The petitioners placed reliance on the certificate issued by Special Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition dated 07.01.2003, wherein the names of the petitioners reflect as working in the respondents 1 to 3 organization since 1997 and 1994 respectively. 9. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners are trying to set up an altogether new case after lapse of 16 years by placing reliance on the documents which are filed along with the reply. It is not permissible for the petitioners to take an altogether new stand after a period of 16 years. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Jammu Vs. Teja Singh, (2020) 19 SCC 811 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the Courts must be careful in ensuring that they do not interfere unduly with the economic arrangement of its affairs by the State or its instrumentalities. The learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, (2006) 4 SCC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has amply clarified the issues relating to absorption, regularization, permanent continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily wage or ad-hoc employees who were engaged and continued for a considerable time. 10. The learned counsel also places reliance on State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that it is the duty of the High Court to examine whether the petitioner who approached the Court has established a right, entitling him to the relief sought on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the context of such examination, the fact that some others who are similarly situated have been granted relief which the petitioner is seeking, may be of some relevance. But, wherein law, writ petitioners who have not established a right are is not entitled to relief, the fact that similarly situated person has been granted relief is not a ground to direct similar relief to him that would amount to enforcing a negative equality by perpetuation of an illegality which is impermissible in law. 11. The learned counsel also places reliance on Union of India and others Vs. Ilmo Devi and another, AIR 2021 SC 4855 . 11. The learned counsel also places reliance on Union of India and others Vs. Ilmo Devi and another, AIR 2021 SC 4855 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the regularization of an employee can be only by virtue of a regularization policy introduced by the employer. In absence of any sanctioned post the contingent employees cannot be directed to be regularized when the petitioners failed to establish their case. 12. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties the petitioners have certainly not established their case for grant of the relief sought for in the above writ petition. Apart from the alleged certificate issued by the Special Deputy Collector dated 07.01.2003 endorsed by the said Officer on 28.03.2003, there is no other document which would clinchingly established the case of the petitioners. There is no document to establish that the petitioners were engaged directly by the respondents 1 to 3. It is also not on record in what capacity the petitioners were engaged. On the other hand, the respondents 1 to 3 submit that, the petitioners were deployed by the 4th respondent and the petitioners served as and when they were deployed by the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent has also in its counter submitted that the petitioners were deployed to work at the 3rd respondent as and when there was some work and the 4th respondent was paying the wages of the petitioners. 13. It is also not known as to what was the nature of duty of the petitioners and in absence of any material evidence, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioners. 14. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that several similarly situated employees were regularized by virtue of directions of this Court and that the writ appeals filed by the respondents 1 to 3 were also dismissed would not be applicable to the present set of facts and circumstances of this case. It is not known as to what all documents were presented before the Court for passing orders for regularization of petitioners therein. In so far as this case is concerned there is absolutely no document(s) to substantiate the claim of the petitioners. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed without costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed.