The International Monetary Fund (IMF) isn’t happy with the federal government’s decision to give bonuses to employees of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) and the earlier approval of Rs. 24 billion in supplementary grants by the Economic Coordination Committee (ECC).
The IMF has sought an explanation from the Finance Division on the source of funds for these allocations, reported Express Tribune.
Despite the inquiry, both the PM and Aurangzeb seem unwilling to reverse the decision. For the Finance Minister, going back on his word would be seen as undermining the Prime Minister’s authority.
Before seeking a new bailout package from the IMF last week, Aurangzeb approved four months’ worth of salaries as bonuses for PMO employees who already receive salaries higher than the standard rates.
Still, Aurangzeb approved five months’ additional salaries for officials ranging from grades 1 to 16 within just two months. Meanwhile, PM Shehbaz approved a one-month salary bonus for officers from grades 17 to 21 and reinstated three months’ worth of bonuses that were previously approved and then withdrawn. These decisions have a financial impact of over Rs. 51 million.
On another note, the lender isn’t happy with the ECC’s decision to okay Rs. 24 billion in supplementary grants for paying off government liabilities. The IMF has already told Pakistan in prior review meetings to refrain from supplementary grants to remain in sight of the primary budget surplus target of 0.4 percent of GDP in the current fiscal year.
For God sake, there must be accountability and check and balance whether he is Aurangzeb or Shehbaz Sharif; people are living below poverty line, and they are giving lavish bonuses to the employees. The funds are meant for the development and uplifting of poor people.
It is deeply disheartening. This move starkly contradicts the government’s purported commitment to austerity measures, especially in light of impending negotiations with the IMF for a bailout package.
It is imperative for the government to uphold transparency and accountability in its actions, particularly when it comes to the allocation of public funds.