Can Central Secretarat Stenographers Services can enroach upon subordinate offices posts in Government of Indi

Question

In Central Public Works Department under Ministry of Urban Development, upto Chief Engineer office are called attached office and below that are called subordinate offices. In one Department i.e. CPWD can there be two divisions i.e. attached offices and subordinate offices. The Central Secretariate Stenographers Service are enroaching upon the posts of Stenographers in CPWD and thus not allowing CPWD stenographers to get their legitimate promotions. CPWD stenographers are limited upto Gr.I in the scale of Rs.5500-9000 starting from Rs.4000-6000, but whereas the CSSS Stenographers enjoy the status upto Sr. Principal Private Secretary in the scale of Rs.12000-16500. DOPT is unheard about this problem and also the Ministry of Urban Development. How can this problem be sorted out. Can any Court of Law can decide this? or the Government will heed to our request. The CSSS lobby do not allow us get the legitimate promotions because they will loose more posts in CPWD.

Answer 1

Elevate the job progression to the Personnel Department for appropriate action so that promotions will be addressed properly.

Answer 2

Former chief of staff Lewis Libby. Photograph: Haraz N Ghanbari/AP

Who is Mr Libby?
He is the former chief of staff to the US vice-president, Dick Cheney.

How did Mr Libby land in court?

Mr Libby is not on trial for the crime itself - the leaking of the CIA agent Valerie Plame's name to the press, which is a federal offence. In fact, no one has been charged with disclosing her name. Mr Libby - the only one on trial for the episode - was indicted in October 2005 on charges of lying to investigators and a grand jury inquiring into whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Ms Plame's name to reporters. Mr Libby, who faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted, has pleaded not guilty. Even if Mr Libby, who plans to be his own star witness, is found guilty, there is speculation he would receive a presidential pardon.


Article continues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What did Mr Libby tell investigators?
Mr Libby told the grand jury and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that he had not disclosed information about Ms Plame to any journalists. But Judith Miller, then a reporter for the New York Times, and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, told the jury that Mr Libby did speak to them about Ms Plame. Mr Libby also testified that he learned of Ms Plame's identity from Tim Russert of NBC News. But Mr Russert is expected to testify that that is false. Prosecutors have said Mr Libby learned of Ms Plame's identity from administration officials, including Mr Cheney.

When did Ms Plame's name leak out?

Her name first appeared in a column on July 14 2003 by the veteran conservative columnist Robert Novak. He said Ms Plame worked at the CIA and was married to Joseph Wilson, a diplomat who had served in Africa and Iraq. Only days earlier, Mr Wilson had written a comment piece in the New York Times, accusing the administration of twisting intelligence to build a case to invade Iraq.

Why did Mr Wilson make the accusation?

Mr Wilson was sent by the CIA to the west African nation of Niger to investigate an Italian intelligence report that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium for a weapons programme. Immediately upon his return, in early March 2002, Mr Wilson reported to the CIA and state department that the documents in the Italian report were bogus. But in his January 2003 state of the union address, George Bush repeated the claim, asserting that, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". Mr Wilson's comment piece on July 6 raised the ire of the Bush administration. The diplomat alleges the information about his wife was leaked in retaliation and was part of an effort to silence other critics.

How did Ms Plame's name emerge?

In September 2006, the former secretary of state Richard Armitage, ironically not considered a pro-war advocate, acknowledged being Mr Novak's source. But he has not been charged as he said naming Ms Plame was an inadvertent slip. The former White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove also talked about Ms Plame to reporters, but was not charged either. In one of the twists of the case, the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzegerald, whose other cases include the prosecution of Conrad Black, the former owner of the Daily Telegraph, knew early in his investigation that Mr Libby was not the original source of the leak.

What will be Mr Libby's defence?

He is expected to argue that he was too busy with security matters to accurately remember events. His argument will be that terrorist threats, Middle East tensions, the war in Iraq and emerging nuclear programmes in Iran, North Korea and Pakistan overshadowed the Plame issue and clouded his memory about how and when he learned of Ms Plame's identity.

Who will be the key witnesses?

Mr Cheney is expected to testify for the defence, either in open court or possibly via videotape, in what would be the first appearance by a sitting vice-president in a criminal trial. He is expected to praise Mr Libby as a public servant. In an interview on the Fox News Sunday television programme, Mr Cheney called Mr Libby "one of the finest individuals I've ever known". The journalists who Mr Libby spoke to will also be called.

Does Mr Cheney's appearance carry risks for the defence?

His testimony may undermine the "I was too busy to remember events" strategy by showing, for example, how often Mr Libby discussed Mr Wilson and Ms Plame with his boss, while exposing the vice-president to inquiries by Congress of how the Bush administration made the case for war.

How politically significant is the trial?

Judge Reggie Walton has made it clear that he intends to keep the case narrowly focused on questions of whether Mr Libby lied. But it will be hard to keep the Iraq war out altogether. In jury selection, for example, the defence plans to weed out those who opposed the war. The trial is likely to provide a glimpse into how the White House responded to critics of its Iraq war policies. At a time when the war is increasingly unpopular, the trial can be expected to produce fodder for its critics.