Govt employees to get biometric cards for entry to CCS-3 building
The new CCS-3 building, which houses at least 9 offices of different ministries and departments, is under the MHA's security cover. Officials aware of the development said that the old identity cards(without biometric) under the new security system will be invalid and that a new smart card along with biometric details will be issued to the employees soon.
Dev Gupta, president of the Central Secretariat Service Forum, said, 'This is a new smart card system and is proposed to be in place. The Aadhar Enabled Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) is installed inside the office buildings. This new smart card, which will replace the identity card will be used to authenticate Government officers entry inside the buildings, thereby is better for security purposes.'
The biometric installed smart cards will be used to enter the tightly secured government offices, officials said. While biometric details of the central government employees working in the ministries were available with each department, it was used only for marking attendance and was placed inside their respective offices. The details were not used for authenticating the visitor's identity at the entry gates. The employees have now been asked to apply for smart cards, give biometrics, which will be synchronised to the smart card for entry.
Gupta said that the seating space provided to CSS officers of various levels in the Central Vista are not in accordance with the prescribed norms of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India. He urged the Government to take due cognisance of this issue and address it appropriately.
An internal communication sent by the MHA to the ministries said, '..It is to inform that this ministry will issue smart cards to all employees whose Ministry/Department housed in the CCS-3 building to facilitate access to the CCS-3 building, which is under the security cover of the MHA….All officials/non officials/contractual employees, who are having identity cards under the old system are requested to switch to smart cards at the earliest.'
The employees have been asked to fill an online form, submit photographs and report to an office of the MHA for biometric authentication.
The 9 ministries/departments that have already been allotted space within the CCS- 3 building include Ministry of Home Affairs(North Block), Ministry of External Affairs(South BLock and Shastri Bhawan), Office of the Principal Scientific Advisor(Vigyan Bhawan Annexe), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas(Shastri Bhawan), Department of Personnel and Training(North Block), Ministry of Small& Medium Enterprises(Udyog Bhawan), Office of the Development Commissioner, MSME(Nirman Bhawan), Ministry of Rural Development(Krishi Bhawan) and Department of Land Resources(Nirman Bhawan).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
24 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Pakistani woman deported after Pahalgam attack to get visitor's visa: MHA to J&K HC
Jammu: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest".The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, "This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out." Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national."It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. "We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her)," he said.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Pakistani woman deported after Pahalgam attack to get visitor's visa: MHA to J&K HC
Jammu: The Ministry of Home Affairs ( MHA ) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid , a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family here. The court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any manner. Rashid (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to Rashid. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. Live Events The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term visa. The court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest". The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and operate. On July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns. In response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor general. On June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" Rashid. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, "This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out." Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April 29. She approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to Pakistan. Rashid, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu. She continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national. "It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order noted. Her husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. "We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her)," he said.
Fibre2Fashion
2 hours ago
- Fibre2Fashion
Trump's penalty talks create unease in Indian textile industry
In what many see as a major escalation of trade tensions, US President Donald Trump on July 30 announced a sweeping 25 per cent tariff on all goods imported from India even as India's competitors, including Pakistan, Vietnam, Bangladesh and Turkiye, were levied lower tariffs of 15-20 per cent. The move has sparked concerns across sectors in India, especially after Trump also mentioned of an additional, unspecified penalty related to India's ongoing trade relations with Russia, specifically its purchases of crude oil. US President Donald Trump announced a 25 per cent tariff on all Indian imports. The move is compounded by Trump's warning of an unspecified penalty tied to India's ongoing trade relations with Russia, particularly its purchase of crude oil. The lack of clarity around the unspecified penalty has created unease in Indian business circles, especially among apparel exporters. While the announcement was made without detailing the nature of the additional penalty, industry leaders and policymakers are concerned over its ramifications and long-term implications. Reacting to the latest development, India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued an official response, as reported by various media outlets. The statement emphasised that the Indian Government is closely examining the implications of the US President's announcement. 'The Government is studying its implications. India and the US have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months. We remain committed to that objective,' the ministry reportedly underlined. The statement also reassured stakeholders that national interests would be protected. 'The Government attaches the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of our farmers, entrepreneurs, and MSMEs. The Government will take all steps necessary to secure our national interest, as has been the case with other trade agreements, including the latest Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the UK,' the ministry reportedly added. Adding another dimension, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, just a day after Trump's tariff announcement, underlined Washington's dissatisfaction with India's continuing imports from Russia, as reported in certain sections of the media. 'India's purchase of oil from Russia is most certainly a point of irritation,' Rubio reportedly said speaking to a radio channel. Experts are thus viewing Trump's tariff imposition not just through the lens of protectionism, but as part of a broader geopolitical agenda. Some analysts believe the punitive measures reflect the US' discomfort with India's increasing strategic autonomy and its deepening economic engagement with Russia. Of particular concern to Indian exporters is the ambiguity surrounding the 'unspecified penalty' mentioned by Trump. The lack of clarity on this additional measure has created unease in the business circles. Sudhir Sekhri, chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) , reflected this sentiment, stating, 'The penalty is a grey area, and we hope the Government of India (GOI) will negotiate this with the US…' Echoing similar concerns, Rajeev Gupta, joint managing director of RSWM Ltd, earlier told Fibre2Fashion , 'Indian entrepreneurs and manufacturers are resilient, and we are confident that business momentum will be consistently rising with planned strategies. What remains crucial is clarity on the tariff position against China,' even as he added, 'A more pressing concern is the undefined penalty clause linked to India's ties with Russia, which adds a layer of uncertainty.' The timing of this development is critical, as both countries have been actively engaged in negotiations for a mutually beneficial trade agreement. India's recent efforts to diversify trade relationships, including the signing of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the UK, many feel, signals a broader strategy to reduce dependence on any one market even as they added the US nonetheless remains one of India's largest trading partners, and any disruption in this relationship could have far-reaching implications for key export sectors such as textiles. 'The Free Trade Agreement with the UK opens up varied opportunities and is a welcoming move,' claimed an industry player interacting with Fibre2Fashion, who expressed apprehensions over the penalty ramifications if not sorted out soon. However, as things stand now, the Indian exporters seem to be adopting a cautious approach, a wait and watch policy to see how things unfold in the days to come as the steep duty imposed by US could hurt nearly half of India's exports, as per some estimates, adding to which is now the threat of additional penalty. Fibre2Fashion News Desk (DR)
