Judgment (A.M. Khanwilkar, J.) 1. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 2. Diverse reliefs have been claimed in this petition. However, the principal issue is: Whether the petitioners can be heard to seek relief against the respondent-Corporation to create permanent vacancies and appoint the petitioners against those clear vacancies & to regularise the petitioners in the light of directions given in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors., reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners claim to be anganwadi sevikas or anganwadi workers. The status of such person has already been considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Ameerbi, (2007) 11 SCC 681 . The Apex Court held that the posts of anganwadi workers are not statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the Central Scheme. The Apex Court went on to observe that it is one thing that there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and anganwadi workers but it is another thing to say that they are holders of civil post. The Apex Court made those observations even after recognizing the contribution made by anganwadi workers, whose presence is felt even at the village level. The Apex Court, however, observed that anganwadi workers do not carry on any function of the State. They do not hold post under a statute. Their posts are not created. After this judgment of the Apex Court, it is too late in the day for the petitioners to ask for the reliefs as prayed in the present petition. 4. To get over this position, the counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners can, in any case, limit the reliefs to the extent of issuing direction against the respondents, in particular, the Corporation, to pay minimum of the pay-scale prescribed for the post of teachers employed in Balwadis, which was run by the Corporation before introduction of the Central Scheme of anganwadis. To buttress this submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation & Anr. v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar & Anr., (2010) 7 S.C.C. 739 . In that case, however, the Court noted that, when the respondents were employed by the appellants, they were appointed on consolidated salary of Rs. To buttress this submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Land Development Corporation & Anr. v. Mohd. Khursheed Anwar & Anr., (2010) 7 S.C.C. 739 . In that case, however, the Court noted that, when the respondents were employed by the appellants, they were appointed on consolidated salary of Rs. 2,000/-per month, despite the fact that, at the time of their selection, two sanctioned posts of Assistant Engineer and one post of Junior Engineer were lying vacant. The Apex court opined that, although the appellants cannot be directed to create permanent post, but can certainly be directed to pay minimum of the pay-scale prescribed for the post of Assistant Engineer to the respondent-employees. 5. Similar observations are found in the other decision relied by the petitioners in the case of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. T. Sumalatha, (2003) 10 S.C.C. 405 . The argument, though attractive at the first blush, will have to be considered in the light of submission made by the counsel for the Corporation. He submits that, no doubt, the anganwadi sevikas may be discharging the same duty of imparting training to children below 6 years, which activity was discharged by the teachers of Balwadis till recently. 6. However, the petitioners, who are working as anganwadi sevikas, cannot compare themselves with the working conditions & obligations of the teachers employed in balwadis run by the Corporation. Indisputably, the teachers of Balwadis would be employed against permanent posts, which is on the basis of available workload in the concerned Balwadi. Further, the working hours of teachers of Balwadis were between 9.00 A.M. to 1.00 A.M. No such working hours are prescribed in respect of anganwadi sevikas & there is no restriction of number of students or student-teacher ratio as regards anganwadi sevikas, unlike in the case of teachers of balwadis. Thus, it is not open to the petitioners, who are anganwadi sevikas, to compare themselves with the work of teachers in balwadis run by the Corporation. In other words, the petitioners have failed to establish that the working conditions and duties performed by them can be said to be comparable in every respect with that of the duties and working conditions of Balwadi teachers employed by the Corporation at the relevant time. 7. In other words, the petitioners have failed to establish that the working conditions and duties performed by them can be said to be comparable in every respect with that of the duties and working conditions of Balwadi teachers employed by the Corporation at the relevant time. 7. In that view of the matter, it is not possible to accede to the petitioners' argument that they are entitled to minimum pay-scale as was payable to teachers of balwadis run by the Corporation. Even if we may express full sympathy with the petitioners, who are being paid an honorary amount of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 3,200/-and Rs. 2,000/-per month to mukhya sevika, anganwadi sevika and anganwadi madatnis, respectively, by the Nasik Corporation, that may be of no avail. Whether to enhance that honorarium is a matter to be examined by the Municipal Corporation. It is open to the Corporation to formulate a scheme providing for minimum benchmark of working hours and student-sevika ratio so as to enable the concerned anganwadi workers to claim higher honorary amount. We are not expressing any opinion in that behalf. That is a matter to be considered by the Corporation, subject to approval by the State Government, if required. 8. Accordingly, the reliefs claimed in this petition are disposed of in the above terms. 9. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners submits that the ad-interim order granted earlier should be continued. The counsel for the Corporation states that there is no reason for continuing ad-interim order, in view of the statement made by him that the services of the present anganwadi workers are not going to be discontinued for some time, for a period of at least four weeks from today, unless, in a given case, action is required to be taken because of misconduct against particular anganwadi person. On accepting the said statement, no further order is necessary.