Receiving Payment for Guarding the Deceased

Is it permissible to receive payment for guarding the deceased, given that the deceased is prohibited from benefiting?

It is permitted. See the source for the reason.

In the Talmud Avodah Zarah 62b, it is explained that payment to a worker for wine used for idol worship is prohibited from benefit, as the wine is prohibited from benefit, so too is its payment. Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions that according to this, it would be prohibited to take payment for the Chevra Kadisha, and Chavvat Da'at answers him that since in Avodah Zarah 63a it is explained that if a non-Jew hired him to break barrels of wine used for idol worship, it is permitted to take payment, as reducing impurity is preferable, so too here, since they are engaged in the burial of the deceased, reducing impurity is preferable. Rabbi Akiva Eiger questions him that it is explained that if one hires a Jew to guard wine used for idol worship, his payment is prohibited, as he wants its preservation, and how can one take payment for guarding the deceased, as there is no reason for reducing impurity. He wants its preservation, as it is said, one who removes his bed is praiseworthy. It is written in the responsa of Chatam Sofer, part 1 (Orach Chaim), siman 128: "Or else, without this, payment for guarding is not prohibited, but only as one who wants the preservation of the prohibition, such as in idolatry where it is commanded to quickly destroy, and see Pnei Yehoshua Chullin 8 regarding a knife for idolatry, and in chametz where it is commanded to destroy, and in kilayim where one who maintains it is lashed, see there in Avodah Zarah 64a, and my father-in-law, the gaon, who questioned from the burial of the deceased, also wants its preservation, it is prohibited as one who removes his bed is praiseworthy [Moed Katan 22a], and the Torah commanded to bury him, and yet, if I were there, I would say there is no question, that only where he wants its preservation is it prohibited due to the severity of the prohibition, then his payment is prohibited as the worker wants its preservation, if not for reducing impurity, but the deceased, the prohibition of his benefit does not cause the prohibition of his preservation, but due to his disgrace or atonement, and if there were no need for atonement and no disgrace, there would be no commandment to bury him, although he is prohibited from benefit, in this case, his payment is permitted, and in any case, even if it would be prohibited from benefit, there is no prohibition in its preservation, on the contrary, the Holy One, blessed be He, wants its preservation until the day of the wave, and then the humble will eat and be satisfied, and all the more so the one guarded for the omer, as it is a commandment, so it is obvious that his payment is permitted." This means that since he does not want the preservation of the guarding, but the guarding is atonement from another place, there is no benefit coming to him from the prohibition of benefit. In the responsa of Maharam Shik, siman 143, an additional reason is written to permit taking payment for guarding the deceased, and that is because the care of the deceased is incumbent upon the relatives, and they want to exempt themselves by having another guard for them, and therefore it is not taking payment for guarding the deceased, but for exempting the relatives. In the responsa of Achiezer, part 2, siman 19, it is written that they take payment for idleness. And there are those who write to explain, that only when the prohibition of benefit is due to the baseness of the object, its payment is prohibited. But where the prohibition of benefit is due to its importance, on the contrary, it is possible and a commandment to guard even for payment.