By Ali Jookhun, O.S.K.
Disability-rights advocate since 1993
Executive Council Member, African Disability Forum
From Asleem at TEDPB to Aarthi at SENA
The CCM’s recommendation in the case of Mrs Aarthi Burtony André should be a turning point. Disability-sector institutions must demonstrate, in their own employment practices, the rights and inclusion they expect from every other employer.
Employment is more than a salary. It is a right and a source of dignity, independence and equal participation. Public institutions serving persons with disabilities should therefore be model employers: removing barriers, recognising merit and treating reasonable accommodation as a normal part of working life.
The cases of Asleem at the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons Board (TEDPB) and Mrs Aarthi Burtony André at the Special Education Needs Authority (SENA) must be read together. Asleem’s case is the earlier warning: a worker with a visual impairment remained a trainee for eleven years within the institution meant to help persons with disabilities obtain decent employment. Aarthi’s is the current test: a qualified professional recruited on merit faced uncertainty over her contract and the arrangements that enabled her to work.
Asleem at TEDPB: an eleven-year warning
TEDPB was established in 1996 to combat employment discrimination, educate employers, remove prejudice and barriers, promote training and employment schemes, and improve the social and economic situation of persons with disabilities.
In 2002, while I was serving on its Board, TEDPB requested an examination of its weaknesses by the Mauritius Audit Bureau. The review raised concerns about economy, efficiency and effectiveness and favoured a comprehensive one-stop body. Whatever the institutional model, its message was clear: reform, accountability and measurable results were needed.
Asleem lost his eyesight in 2000 following a workplace accident in 1999. In August 2010, he joined TEDPB as a trainee under its Skills Development Programme. By January 2021, he was still a trainee—eleven years later—receiving a stipend rather than the statutory minimum wage and without secure, permanent employment.
This was not a minor administrative issue. Section 6(c) of the TEDPB Act entrusted its General Manager with assisting persons with disabilities to secure employment. Yet a worker with a visual impairment, employed through TEDPB’s own programme, remained on insecure trainee status for more than a decade. In 2021, I publicly asked whether TEDPB itself was setting the example it expected from other employers.
Asleem’s experience shows that employment support cannot end with placement. It requires employer partnerships, individual assessment and job matching, coaching, disability awareness, reasonable accommodation and follow-up. Recruitment matters, but so do a living wage, retention, equal treatment, job security and career development.
A programme intended to lead to employment must never become a long-term holding pattern.
Aarthi: recruited on merit, not charity
More than a decade later, the same institutional question arose at SENA. Aarthi’s case is not identical to Asleem’s, but the lesson is the same: disability-sector bodies must not allow fixed-term insecurity or the withdrawal of support to become barriers to employment.
In September 2023, SENA advertised a Resource Person post. Mrs Aarthi Burtony André applied, was interviewed, received an offer in November and began work on 4 December 2023 under a one-year contract.
Mrs Burtony André, who is blind, holds an LLB and an MBA in Innovation and Leadership. She was recruited through an advertised selection exercise—not as charity, but on merit. Her work supports learners with visual impairments. Her qualifications, experience and lived knowledge should be assets to an authority responsible for inclusive practice and the holistic development of learners with special educational needs.
The initial arrangement was practical and inclusive: three days of telework, two days at the office, transport for office attendance and assistance for school visits when required. It enabled her to perform her duties without removing essential responsibilities. That is reasonable accommodation: not preferential treatment, but an individual adjustment enabling a person with a disability to work equally.
Her employment was terminated with effect from 1 May 2025. On 2 May, she was told that the termination had been reviewed and that she should resume duty immediately. On 8 May, she was informed that she would continue working from home until her services were required at the office.
Cabinet took note of the appointment of a new SENA Director on 29 August 2025; the Director signed her contract on 6 October and assumed office on 7 October. On 26 November, Mrs Burtony André was asked to discuss new terms. She was told that she would have to attend the office daily, that SENA had no work-from-home policy and that transport would no longer be available.
She lodged a complaint before the Commission for Conciliation and Mediation (CCM) on 27 November 2025. At the first sitting on 28 November, the trade unionist, Mr Reaz Chuttoo of CTSP, accompanied her; I was also present as a disability-rights advocate.
The CCM made clear that contractual terms cannot be changed unilaterally. It noted that the letter of 2 May confirmed that the original contract remained in force and that, absent a lawful variation, its terms remained binding on both parties.
Transport was not incidental. Mrs Burtony André lives at St Hubert, and travelling to SENA’s office in Ebène involves at least two changes of bus. After the Commission explored alternatives, including a taxi allowance, the matter was referred to the SENA Board, which restored the initial transport facilities. On 4 February 2026, the Board retained a hybrid arrangement of three office days with transport and two days of telework. This confirmed that reasonable accommodation was operationally possible.
From 1 January 2026, SENA came under the Pay Research Bureau (PRB). Administrative and technical posts were created on its establishment, but the Resource Person post occupied by Mrs Burtony André was not.
Naushad Paurobally’s CCM recommendation
In recommendations issued on 30 September 2026 in Labour Dispute No. CCM/DIS/175/25, Mr Naushad Paurobally, Acting President of the Commission for Conciliation and Mediation, set out a lawful route towards Aarthi’s professional stability.
The recommendation does not establish that disability creates an automatic right to permanent appointment, nor does it itself appoint Mrs Burtony André to a permanent post. Instead, it identifies a formal pathway through which SENA may seek to secure a durable position for her: creating a Resource Person grade on SENA’s establishment, subject to consideration and approval by the Ministry of Education and Human Resources and, ultimately, Cabinet. It therefore points towards stability without bypassing public-sector appointment procedures.
The CCM found that this was not an ordinary expiry of a fixed-term appointment. Mrs Burtony André had worked continuously since December 2023; her functions were linked to SENA’s continuing responsibilities; the letter of 2 May showed that SENA still needed her services; and her appointment letter of 30 October 2023 contemplated, subject to satisfactory performance and other criteria, consideration for appointment on the Permanent and Pensionable Establishment. The Commission also noted that she is qualified and capable and had worked without an adverse report.
It further observed that the absence of the post from the PRB report does not, by itself, establish that the work is no longer necessary. The circumstances require an assessment beyond a mechanical application of establishment procedures.
The Commission recognised that Mrs Burtony André’s lived experience as a professional who is blind is a particular strength in supporting learners with special educational needs, including learners with visual impairments. Disability should not be seen simply as a personal circumstance requiring protection. In a role such as hers, lived experience is professional expertise.
The CCM recommended that SENA formally request the Ministry of Education and Human Resources to refer the matter to Cabinet, seeking approval for the creation of a Resource Person grade on SENA’s establishment with a view to facilitating Mrs Burtony André’s absorption into that grade.
This is a route to regularisation, not a favour. It respects public-service procedures while responding to a continuing need already demonstrated in practice.
Rights must be implemented
The Workers’ Rights Act 2019 contains binding protections against discrimination in employment on the ground of impairment. Section 13(4) provides that a worker in a position of a permanent nature should not be kept on a fixed-duration contract for work serving the fixed, recurring and permanent needs of the employer’s normal activity. Section 13(6) treats successive fixed-term contracts as continuous employment where the break between them does not exceed 28 days.
These provisions apply according to their statutory terms and the facts of each case; they do not, by themselves, create an automatic entitlement to permanent appointment.
Mr Chuttoo maintained before the CCM that Mrs Burtony André performs work of a permanent nature and that her service should lead to permanency. That question must follow the proper legal and institutional process. However, the CCM’s reasoning leaves no room for using fixed-term arrangements to perpetuate insecurity where work is ongoing and necessary.
The Equal Opportunities Act prohibits discrimination on specified grounds, including impairment, in employment and other protected areas. Its requirements are legally binding, subject to the Act’s definitions, exceptions and enforcement mechanisms. It does not itself guarantee appointment to a particular post, but it requires employment decisions and conditions to be free from unlawful discrimination.
Article 27 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) recognises the right to work in an open, inclusive and accessible labour market, including recruitment, continued employment, career progression, working conditions, reasonable accommodation and assistance to obtain and retain work.
Article 27(1)(g) specifically requires States Parties to employ persons with disabilities in the public sector. As a treaty obligation, the UNCRPD guides the interpretation and implementation of domestic law and public policy; its provisions should not be presented as creating, without domestic legal effect, an automatic right to a particular appointment.
The Protection and Promotion of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2024 adopts the same rights-based approach. Section 39 provides for duties concerning the employment of persons with disabilities and reasonable accommodation, subject to the statutory conditions, including the exception relating to undue prejudice. At the time of writing, the Act remains marked as awaiting commencement by Proclamation. Accordingly, its provisions should be distinguished from rights and duties already enforceable under legislation in force. Rights must be brought into operation and enforced when people need them—not left as promises on paper.
The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, in its 2024 Concluding Observations on Mauritius, expressed concern about low employment and difficulty accessing the open labour market, especially for women and young persons with disabilities. It also noted weak enforcement of employment obligations under the 1996 TEDPB framework. These observations are recommendations to the State under the UNCRPD monitoring process, not domestic court orders; they nevertheless provide an important benchmark for assessing compliance and policy. Aarthi’s case is therefore not an isolated dispute, but a test of the State’s wider responsibility.
Inclusion must be lived
This is not about one personality or one Director. Under the SENA Act, the Director implements Board decisions and acts under its directions. Employment security and accommodation engage the Board and public authorities. Accountability must not become blurred when an employee’s rights are at stake.
SENA should now pursue the CCM recommendation with the Ministry and Cabinet, preserve the arrangements enabling Mrs Burtony André to work effectively and ensure that no adverse measure follows her assertion of rights. More broadly, public institutions should adopt clear accommodation policies, assess and record needs with employees, review arrangements jointly and never withdraw them unilaterally. These are necessary institutional safeguards and, where required by applicable law, legal duties; other measures may be adopted as recommended good practice.
Public-sector and PRB frameworks should cover accessible transport, telework where duties permit, accessible technology, assistive devices, personal assistance and individual flexibility. Disability-sector institutions should recruit, retain and promote qualified persons with disabilities and report on recruitment, retention and accessibility. These measures are recommendations for effective implementation and accountability, while the underlying duties of non-discrimination and reasonable accommodation remain governed by applicable law.
Mrs Burtony André has expressed the issue powerfully: “My academic qualifications and professional achievements seem to carry little significance for governments that continue to perceive persons of my community as a burden, rather than citizens entitled to the same rights as persons without disabilities.”
Asleem’s case is the historical warning; Aarthi’s is the current test. In Asleem’s case, the right to employment was delayed within the institution established to deliver it. In Aarthi’s case, merit, continuity of work and reasonable accommodation have had to be defended before the CCM.
Governments, Boards and Directors may change. Rights do not.
Reasonable accommodation is not a favour. Merit is not charity. Job security must never become the price a person pays for having a disability.