Pemra again rebuts allegations by POWA
ISLAMABAD: The Pakistan Electronic Media Regularity Authority (Pemra) takes serious exception to a well orchestrated vilification campaign against its chairman at the hands of some disgruntled elements of the organization led by a suspended officer and supported by another absentee from duty.
As clarified earlier, the Pemra Officers Welfare Association (Powa) which is registered under Industrial Relations Act is absolutely of no legal validity since Pemra is a government regulatory authority functioning under the Act of Parliament (2007). The employees of Pemra are ‘Public Servants” under the definition of Section 12 of Pemra Act. Therefore, formulating any blackmailing body in disrespect to the laws is absolutely illegal, invalid and is of no legal consequence.
Moreover, as per document available with Pemra the so-called “Powa” was registered on September 16, 2013 whereas the signatures of (RTU) contained in the letter are dated 16-09-2011, which makes the registration order doubtful. (Scanned copy enclosed for reference).
It is quite strange that if the plotters of this defamation campaign have so much irrefutable evidences against their own management then why they are not directly approaching the courts of law, FIA or NAB instead of defaming their own organization in media?
The allegation on chairman for getting Rs95,000/- per month under monetization scheme has been twisted and presented incorrectly.The incumbent chairman was serving as the Secretary Ministry of Information (BS-22) at the time of his appointment in Pemra on January 28, 2013. As per Govt./Establishment Division Rules, he was entitled for the pay and perks as per his Last Pay Certificate (LPC).
After his retirement as the Secretary, Government of Pakistan, the incumbent chairman himself wrote a letter to the Pemra finance wing dated 04-04-2013 to stop payment of monetization amount in his salary since he was no more on government payroll and he opted the pay/package of the chairman in Pemra. A scanned copy of said letter addressed to GM Finance is attached for record. Thus the allegations of getting extra Rs95,000/- per month on account of monetization are absolutely incorrect.
The chairman is using only one vehicle as per his entitlement and the allegations of using more than one vehicle are absolutely unfounded, baseless and bogus. The entry/exist record of the Pemra transport office can be checked to certify as how many vehicles are in use of the chairman.
Regarding procurement of vehicles it was amply clarified on December 6, 2013 that the additional vehicles were procured in replacement of obsolete vehicles after the Authority in its 84th meeting on May 06, 2013 had allocated budget for replacement of condemned vehicles after seeking clarification from Finance Division (Expenditure Wing). The Finance Division vide u.o. No. F.7(1) Exp.IV/2012-856 dated October 31, 2012 had clarified that economy measures were not applicable on self-financing organization which do not receive any funds from the government.
It is pertinent to mention that Honda Prosmetic VTI Oriel was purchased by Pemra for protocol and operational duties at Pemra Headquarters, in the month of Feb 2013 vide Pay Order # 3616059 dated 8th February 2013 in favour of the manufacturer i.e. Honda Atlas Cars Pvt Ltd. Therefore, the allegation of payment of own money to the manufacturing company is totally concocted.
Moreover, it may be noticed that two Parado vehicles purchased in the year 2006 are deputed for operations duties, one of which is in use of Karachi Region since its purchase. Likewise Suzuki Swift is deputed at Lahore Region, whereas, the remaining vehicles are deputed for protocol/operational duty at Headquarters. There is no white Parado in Islamabad with Pemra as alleged by the story tellers.
It is perturbing that how the facts have been concealed by these notorious elements while defaming their own organization. They clearly know that the operational vehicles have been allocated to the entitled officers and some are on the disposal of Enforcement staff for operational/enforcement duties. It is disgusting to attribute such baseless allegations on the incumbent chairman.
The claim about posting out the GM Regulations allegedly for resisting illegalities is absolutely misleading and incorrect. The lady GM is still in Pemra on deputation. She was posted to the Licensing Wing from regulations, on her own choice and free will as she felt that the environment was not conducive for her in Litigations/Regulations. After the initiation of FIA inquiry on licensing issues, she again requested the chairman to post her in any other wing except for the “regulations” and the “Licensing” as, being a lady, she did not found it appropriate to sit late and face FIA or court inquiries. (An undertaking of the concerned GM is attached with this mail for record). The facts about the other “qualified GM” have already been shared with Daily Jang/News dated December 6, 2013.
Undoubtedly, the rates specified in this news story for hiring legal counsels in Pemra were in-vogue in 2005-2007. Your esteemed media group is quite informative about the present day fees of quality lawyers. If any reputed and known lawyer is ready to fight Pemra cases for Rs25,000/- to Rs100,000/- it would be blessing for Pemra. It is not Pemra who has increased the rates of lawyers but the remunerations charged by the quality lawyers are market driven which are beyond the control of Pemra.
It was also wrongly projected that there were only 60-70 court case before the present chairman took over. It is clarified that Iftikhar Rashid had been the Chairman of Pemra until Jan-February, 2008. After him, there have been two consecutive tenures of Mushtaq Malik and the Dr Abdul Jabbar (Look after charge). The incumbent chairman inherited 282 cases when he took the charge of Pemra on 28-01-2013. Whereas, the total number of litigations, as of today, is 230. This clearly speaks out the reality.
The reason for replacing the previous legal counsels was amply explained in our previous clarification that there was huge pendency in adjudication at different courts. Pemra cases were not properly argued, pursued and decided in its favour due to stereo-typed and casual handling by the engaged legal counsels. The legal counsels earlier engaged by Pemra were far behind the level of parity with the counsels engaged by the private litigants against Pemra, particularly the litigation cases pertaining to the satellite TV channels involving billions of rupees of Pemra revenue.
It is astonishing that the couple of employees after having failed to defend inquiries of mismanagement, corruption and illegal appointments (or promotions) against them have launched defamatory campaign through your media group against Pemra and its management. It would be better for them to face inquiries and charges through courts of law instead of passing buck to Pemra.
” 
” 
” 
” 
