1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4535/2006 1. Shahanawaz Khan Namdar Khan, aged about 25 years, Occu. Nil. 2. Shaikh Abid Shaikh Rashid, aged about 25 years, Occu. Nil. 3. Ayyub Khan Umrao Khan. Aged about 30 years, Occu. Nil. All resident of c/o Shahnawas Khan Namdar Khan Idgah, Plot Opposite Idgah Masjid, at and post: Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, District: Buldana. Petitioners. Versus. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Shegaon, Tq. Shegaon, Distt. Buldana. Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the respondent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : A.P. Lavande & R.V.More,JJ DATE : 13.9.2007 Judgment (Per A.P.Lavande,J) 2 Heard Mr. G.G.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.R. Saboo, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. 3. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties heard forthwith. 4. The petitioner no.1 who was serving as Head Master and petitioners 2 and 3 who were serving as teachers in the School run by the respondent seek direction against the respondent for payment of honorarium for the period they rendered their services. The petitioner no. 1 was initially appointed as a teacher and thereafter was appointed as Head Master in the School whereas the petitioners 2 and 3 were appointed as teachers in the school run by the respondent. The petitioners have worked during the period from September 2002 till 13.4.2006 with brakes. The details of the period have been given in para no. 2 of the petition and the period is not disputed by the respondent. It is also not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner no.1 worked as Head Master and petitioners 2 and 3 worked as teachers in the school run by the respondent and that the honorarium of Rs. 800/- p.m. was paid to the teachers and Rs. 1200/- p.m. to the Head Master. The respondent does not deny its liability to pay the 3 honorarium to the petitioners but seeks time of six months to effect pay arrears on the ground that it is facing financial crunch. In view of the above position, in our opinion the petitioners are entitled to receive the honorarium fixed by the respondent which have been illegally withheld by the respondent. We ,therefore, direct the respondent to pay the honorarium at the rate fixed by the respondent to the petitioners for the period they have worked within a period of four months. With this direction the petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. Judge Judge patle