申请人：陈树庆，男，浙江省杭州市人，现住杭州市拱墅区大关苑东五苑6幢5单元202室，身份证号330106196509260073，联系电话15958160478.
被申请人：杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心
地址：杭州市拱墅区文晖路1号，联系电话：87882789。
负责人：王思婕 职务：主任
行政复议请求：请求被申请人履行法定社会保险责任，按照申请人的《浙江省职工基本养老保险历年参保证明》所表明的累计缴费24年4个月的年限，为申请人办好退休资格确认、核定退休金额并发放退休金。
事实与理由：
至2025年12月25日，申请人陈树庆已达法定退休年龄60周岁+3个月，实际已缴社会保险统筹24年4个月，超过了15年的最低缴费年限。
2025年12月25日上午10时39分许，陈树庆到被申请人设在拱墅区政务服务中心的办公场所办理退休手续，办事人员以陈树庆曾经因遭2007年“煽动颠覆国家政权罪”判刑4年和2016年“颠覆国家政权罪”判刑10年6个月为由，社保缴费年限扣除两项刑期累加，剩余缴费年限只有九年多，不足最低缴费年限15年的规定，拒不办理申请人的退休资格，由于申请人多次要求，被申请人出具《杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心办理事项告知单》，还有一份盖着被申请人印章的《告知书》，及一份制作日期是二〇一〇年九月三十日的《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件-浙人社函[2010]358号-关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函（此件依申请公开）》。申请人通过认真审阅和分析，认为前述《告知单》、《告知书》、浙人社函[2010]358号所依据的法律及政策明显适用不当或效力不足，申请人不服，根据《中华人民共和国行政复议法》第十一条“可依照本法申请复议”及该条第（十二）项关于的“申请行政机关依法给付抚恤金、社会保险待遇或者最低生活保障等社会保障，行政机关没有依法给付”情形规定，特向拱墅区人民政府申请复议，请求依法做出公正的决定，支持申请人的复议请求。
申请人认为，契约精神是现代文明社会得以稳定运行的基石，民以吏为师，全社会的诚实守信，政府行为要做表率。本案20多年来，申请人、申请人家属、申请人工作或社保挂靠的单位替申请人缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日申请人最后一次刑满释放后，到被申请人设在拱墅区香积寺东路58号的政务服务中心几次补缴中间断交的最近几年（这其中就包括部分刑期内的期间）社保费用也都顺利完成。被申请人收取保险缴费的时候好好的，现在要被申请人履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以所谓“相关政策”为托词，拒不履行被申请人应负的社会保险责任，让人民对政府行为的信赖利益保护原则荡然无存。千里之提毁于蚁穴，每一个涉及政府“言而无信、约而不守”的案件，都会逐步侵蚀并最终摧毁政府的公信力。
本案的争议焦点，首先集中在具体行政行为中，民众对于政府的信赖利益能否得到保护，说的通俗一点，就是政府是否可以随意违约？申请人认为政府违约，其“理由”必须经得起严格的法律限制，本案杭州市拱墅区社会保险经办机构拒绝为陈树庆现在办理领取养老金资格，所依托的“相关政策”是否也站得住脚呢？不妨展开初步的分析如下：
本案的法律关系由两项事实构成，第一项是缴纳社保，其中包括服刑期间的缴纳是否有效？陈树庆、就业或代缴单位等是缴费义务人，政府（社保经办机构和财税机构）是收费权力人；第二项是到了法定年龄领取养老金，陈树庆变成了领取权利人（受益人），政府变成了社会保险支付的义务人。该行为由于社会保险经办机构根据法定授权履行政府的社会保险管理与服务职责，既有具体行政行为的性质，又由于该行为的整个过程由民事主体陈树庆一方和行政主体社保经办机构一方共同完成，类似于民事法律行为的“合同”。如果被申请人主张第一项事实陈树庆一方缴纳10年6个月刑期间的社会保险无效成立，那么本案被申请人制作的《告知书》、《告知单》上认为陈树庆只剩下9年10个月的有效缴费期也是确立的；如果陈树庆认为己方缴纳社保包括刑期内不存在法律规定无效的情形，应该认定有效，本案被申请人“约而不守”的《告知书》、《告知单》就是错误认定，代表政府方履职的被申请人应该尽快按规定替陈树庆办好退休手续并按时发放法定与约定的养老金。
现代法治社会是“对政府法无授权不可为，对民众是法无禁止即自由”，要主张作为民众陈树庆一方缴纳刑期内社会保险费的行为无效，除不可抗力无法继续履行外，就必须指出其“法”之所“禁”。对此《中华人民共和国民法典》对于民事法律行为的效力问题，就有类似的规定，在《民法典》第一编“总则”的第六章第三节第一百五十三条规定“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定的民事法律行为无效。……违背公序良俗的民事法律行为无效”，将“违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定”或“违背公序良俗”的事实作为“无效”前提。
从被申请人提供的《告知书》中可见，其推翻约定、拒不履行对陈树庆的社会保险责任的理由是：根据《中华人民共和国劳动法》第二条第一款“在中华人民共和国境内的企业、个体经济组织（以下统称用人单位）和与之形成劳动关系的劳动者，适用本法”、第七十二条“用人单位和劳动者必须依法参加社会保险，缴纳社会保险费”，《中华人民共和国社会保险法》第十条第一款、第二款“职工应当参加基本养老保险，由用人单位和职工共同缴纳基本养老保险费。无雇工的个体工商户、未在用人单位参加基本养老保险的非全日制从业人员以及其他灵活就业人员可以参加基本养老保险，由个人缴纳基本养老保险费”，《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅关于被判处有期徒刑人员基本养老保险有关问题的复函》（浙人社函[2010]358号）规定“服刑人员在服刑期间不属于职工基本养老保险参保对象”。尤其在《告知书》里，以“属于违规参保缴费”为由，不是强调保险经办机构应拒收缴费人服刑期间参保缴费，而是强调其对于已缴社保，可以通过“该期间缴纳的职工基本养老保险应当清退”来毁约赖账。
显而易见，上述《劳动法》和《社会保险法》包括《浙江省职工基本养老保险条例》里的规定，是要求用人单位和劳动者去缴纳社会保险费，立法目的是保障从业人员的社会保险权利，里面并没有“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”的强制性规定；至于浙人社函[2010]358号《复函》，是（此件依申请公开），根据法律未经公布不生效的原则，“依申请公开”不能等同于“公布”，没有对抗不知情相对人的任何效力；《复函》做出日期是“二〇一〇年九月三十日”、印发日期是2010年10月9日，对我在2010年9月13日已经结束的第一次服刑四年期间缴费显然没有追溯效果；更何况《复函》不具备《中华人民共和国立法法》中有关法律、行政法规、地方性法规、自治条例和单行条例、规章的级别和效果，属于无立法权的政府部门替自己“既当运动员，又当裁判员”制定的“比赛规则”，里面所指的“服刑人员不能参加社会保险”明显属于2018年2月8日施行的《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国行政诉讼法〉的解释》99 条将典型的关于行政主体“重大且明显违法”的情形之“第二，减损权利或增加义务的行政行为没有法律依据。”，所以《复函》也不能作为政府自己违约的依据。现在虽然还没有走到行政诉讼阶段，所谓“法无德不立”，一个良法的原理，比如最高法关于适用行政诉讼的《解释》第99条，应该不仅在司法实践中适用，在行政裁断中也是可供参照的。
申请人在与被申请人的工作人员交涉时，有工作人员解释说“你坐牢期间，无法成为前述《劳动法》等法律条款中规定的缴费企业的真实劳动者，你的职工养老保险只是虚拟的代缴形式，不符合法律和政策的规定”。当时，申请人申辩说“社保代缴，法律至今没有明令禁止，是社会保险开始统筹以来一直默认并在实践中广泛实行的政策，近二十多年来包括你们人社部门在内的机关事业单位许多一线工作人员，并没有在劳务派遣单位真实上班，但由劳务派遣单位代发报酬代缴社保，你们不能对人对己双重标准”他们回答说“劳务派遣是有法可依的”。申请人事后进一步了解了有关劳务派遣的法律、法规、规章和机关事业单位使用劳务派遣工的历史与现状后发现，这是以“合法”的形式掩盖编制内外实际上的双轨制所造成的身份性职业歧视，是严重违反《劳动法》、《劳动合同法》等法律“同工同酬”要求的行径，而且是超范围使用（注：《劳务派遣暂行规定》第二条“劳务派遣单位经营劳务派遣业务，企业（以下称用工单位）使用被派遣劳动者，适用本规定。依法成立的会计师事务所、律师事务所等合伙组织和基金会以及民办非企业单位等组织使用被派遣劳动者，依照本规定执行”。并未将机关事业单位列入使用被派遣劳动者的用工单位）、并为近年来国家有关部门在纠错、改进措施中明令禁止（注：财政部令第102号《政府购买服务管理办法》第十条 “以下各项不得纳入政府购买服务范围:……购买主体的人员招、聘用，以劳务派遣方式用工，以及设置公益性岗位”），申请人希望本案不要成为又一个类似“州官放火与百姓点灯”双重标准的典型。
申请人认为自已经到了法定年龄享受退休的资格与待遇，除了前述实际已缴费的年限及对政府信赖利益保护原则以外，没有任一现行法律的条款明确规定服刑人员在服刑期间不得参与社会保险（包括社保缴费）。而在对申请人的两次判刑的判决书中，判决了剥夺一定期限的人身自由与政治权利，并没有判决剥夺社会经济权利当然包括享有社会保险的权利。根据中华人民共和国政府1997年10月27日签署、全国人民代表大会常务委员会2001年2月28日批准的已经具备法律效力的《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》“第九条：本盟约缔约国确认人人享有社会保障，包括社会保险”的规定，申请人陈树庆并不因为其服刑就成了“人人”之外，应该享有社会保险。
更何况，本案如果进一步展开下去，还牵涉到中国监狱普遍的对犯人强制无偿劳动的问题。陈树庆第一次坐牢期间自2008年1月至2010年9月共计2年零8个月在浙江省乔司监狱六分监狱七监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房菜班组进行菜肴初加工2年5个月；第二次坐牢期间自2017年1月至2025年3月共计8年2个月在浙江省乔司监狱三分监狱六监区参与生产外贸箱包3个月及伙房面食组烧制犯人主食7年11个月。两次坐牢期间不算第一次坐牢看守所里的零星劳动，实际参加监狱劳动累计10年10个月，所以，根据早在1948年12月10日联合国大会通过的《世界人权宣言》第四条“任何人不得使为奴隶或奴役，一切形式的奴隶制度和奴隶买卖，均应禁止”；第二十二条“每个人，作为社会的一员，有享有社会保障，并有权享有他的个人尊严和人格的自由发展所必须的经济、社会和文化方面各种权利的实现，……”；第二十三条第（二）款“人人有同工同酬之权利，不容任何区别”。中华人民共和国政府1998年10月5日签署的《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》也有“任何人不得使充奴工”的相关规定。按照这些国际法的要求，即使监狱犯人依法判决并以改造为目标的服“苦役”，也应与《中华人民共和国劳动法》相应的同工同酬及社会保险接轨。如果作为联合国常任理事国的我国政府能够遵守这些宣言与公约，将我服刑期间参加劳动应有的劳动报酬与社会保障予以考量和贯彻，即使我自己及亲朋好友工作单位替我服刑期间的缴费不算甚至没有交费，也够15年以上办理退休的资格与相关手续。
当然，政府遵守已经签署、甚至有的已经批准的《国际公约》，不仅是法治社会依法行政的要求，也是一个文明社会起码得“公序良俗”。
综上，鉴于申请人实际社保缴费24年4个月已经超过规定的最低缴费标准15年，鉴于申请人本人及打工企业、家属等在过去缴纳或补交社保费用时从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的告知，鉴于《中华人民共和国劳动法》、《中华人民共和国社会保险法》及其他任何一个具有《中华人民共和国立法法》所包含的具有法律地位与效力的规范性文件对于服刑期间的社保参与人并没有强制性条款明确排除，鉴于法院对于本案申请人已生效判决只明确剥夺人身及政治权利并没有剥夺社会经济权利（包括社会保险的权利），鉴于申请人服刑期间参加劳动及我国政府已经加入或批准具有国家法律效力的国际公约对于公民同工同酬及普遍无例外的社会保障要求，申请人提出行政复议申请，恳请复议机关拱墅区人民政府对本案复议请求予以支持，促使被申请人及时办理申请人的退休资格并履行对申请人按照缴费24年4个月年限应负的社会保险责任。
此致
杭州市拱墅区人民政府
申请人：陈树庆
2026年1月25日
附：
一、本《行政复议申请书》副本1份；
二、申请人陈树庆身份证复印件（包含正反两面）1份；
三、申请人陈树庆的《养老保险历年参保证明》1份；
四、《杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心办理事项告知单》1份；
五、盖着“杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心”印章的《告知书》1份；
六、《浙江省人力资源和社会保障厅文件》浙人社函[2010]358号1份。
编辑：钟然 校对：程筱筱
Application for Administrative Reconsideration
Applicant: Chen Shuqing, male, resident of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Dong Fifth Compound, Daguanyuan, Gongshu District, Hangzhou.ID No.: 330106196509260073Contact No.: 15958160478
Respondent: Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service CenterAddress: No. 1 Wenhui Road, Gongshu District, HangzhouTelephone: 87882789Person in Charge: Wang SijiePosition: Director
Request for Administrative Reconsideration
The applicant requests that the respondent fulfill its statutory social insurance obligations, and, based on the cumulative contribution period of 24 years and 4 months as shown in the applicant’s Zhejiang Province Employee Basic Pension Insurance Contribution Record, complete the confirmation of the applicant’s retirement eligibility, calculate the retirement pension amount, and issue the pension payments accordingly.
Facts and Reasons
As of December 25, 2025, the applicant Chen Shuqing had reached the statutory retirement age of 60 years and 3 months, with 24 years and 4 months of actual social insurance contributions, exceeding the minimum required contribution period of 15 years.
At approximately 10:39 a.m. on December 25, 2025, Chen Shuqing went to the respondent’s office located at the Gongshu District Government Service Center to办理 retirement procedures. The staff refused to process the applicant’s retirement eligibility on the grounds that Chen Shuqing had previously been sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in 2007 for the charge of “inciting subversion of state power,” and to ten years and six months’ imprisonment in 2016 for the charge of “subversion of state power.” The respondent deducted both periods of imprisonment from the contribution record, claiming that the remaining valid contribution period was only slightly more than nine years, which did not meet the minimum requirement of 15 years, and therefore refused to process the applicant’s retirement.
After repeated requests by the applicant, the respondent issued a Notice of Handling Matters of the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center, as well as a Notice bearing the respondent’s official seal, and a document dated September 30, 2010, titled Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Document—Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358—Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (Disclosed Upon Request).
After careful review and analysis, the applicant believes that the legal and policy bases relied upon in the above-mentioned Notice of Handling Matters, Notice, and Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 are clearly misapplied or lack legal validity. The applicant refuses to accept these determinations and, pursuant to Article 11 of the Administrative Reconsideration Law of the People’s Republic of China, as well as Item (12) thereof concerning situations where “an application is made for administrative authorities to provide pensions, social insurance benefits, or minimum living保障 in accordance with law, but the administrative authority fails to do so,” hereby applies to the People’s Government of Gongshu District for administrative reconsideration, requesting a fair and lawful decision in support of the applicant’s claims.
The applicant holds that the spirit of contract is the cornerstone of a stable modern civilized society. Officials serve as role models for the people, and government conduct must set an example of honesty and trustworthiness. For more than twenty years in this case, the applicant, the applicant’s family members, and the applicant’s employers or affiliated contribution units have paid social insurance contributions on the applicant’s behalf, and have never been clearly informed that contributions during periods of imprisonment were prohibited. Even after the applicant’s final release upon completion of sentence on March 10, 2025, the applicant was able to successfully make supplemental payments for interrupted contribution periods—including some periods during imprisonment—at the Government Service Center located at No. 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District.
The respondent accepted these contributions without issue at the time of collection, yet now, when required to fulfill its insurance obligations, has abruptly reversed its position, using so-called “relevant policies” as a pretext to refuse to fulfill its legally mandated social insurance responsibilities. This conduct undermines the principle of protection of legitimate expectations in government actions. As the saying goes, “A dike a thousand miles long can be destroyed by an ant hole”; every case in which the government breaks its word and reneges on its commitments gradually erodes and ultimately destroys public trust.
The core issue in dispute in this case concerns whether, in specific administrative acts, the public’s legitimate expectation interests in government conduct can be protected—put simply, whether the government may arbitrarily breach its commitments. The applicant submits that any governmental breach must be subject to strict legal constraints. Thus, whether the “relevant policies” relied upon by the Gongshu District social insurance authority to refuse the applicant’s pension eligibility can withstand legal scrutiny merits analysis.
The legal relationship in this case consists of two factual elements. The first concerns the payment of social insurance contributions, including whether contributions made during periods of imprisonment are valid. Chen Shuqing, along with employing or proxy-paying entities, is the obligor of contributions, while the government (social insurance agencies and fiscal authorities) is the recipient. The second concerns the receipt of pension benefits upon reaching statutory retirement age, whereby Chen Shuqing becomes the rights holder (beneficiary), and the government becomes the obligor responsible for payment of social insurance benefits.
As social insurance agencies perform government-authorized management and service duties, the acts in question constitute specific administrative acts. At the same time, because the entire process involves both a civil subject (Chen Shuqing) and an administrative subject (the social insurance agency), it resembles a “contract” under civil law. If the respondent asserts that the applicant’s 10 years and 6 months of social insurance contributions during imprisonment are invalid, then the respondent’s determination that only 9 years and 10 months of valid contributions remain would follow. However, if the applicant’s position—that contributions including those made during imprisonment are not rendered invalid by any legal provision—is correct, then the respondent’s Notice and Notice of Handling Mattersconstitute erroneous determinations, and the respondent, acting on behalf of the government, should promptly complete the applicant’s retirement procedures and issue pension payments in accordance with law and agreement.
In a modern rule-of-law society, “what is not authorized by law is prohibited for the government; what is not prohibited by law is permitted for citizens.” To claim that the applicant’s social insurance contributions during imprisonment are invalid, it must be shown where the law explicitly prohibits such conduct. Article 153 of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China provides that civil legal acts are invalid if they violate mandatory provisions of laws or administrative regulations, or contravene public order and good morals. Thus, invalidity must be premised on such violations.
The respondent’s Notice cites provisions of the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China, the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China, and the Reply on Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358), asserting that prisoners are not eligible participants in employee basic pension insurance during imprisonment. Notably, the Notice emphasizes not the refusal to accept contributions during imprisonment, but rather the repudiation of already-paid contributions by asserting they should be refunded.
It is evident that the cited Labor Law, Social Insurance Law, and the Zhejiang Province Employee Basic Pension Insurance Regulations aim to ensure social insurance rights for workers, and contain no mandatory provisions prohibiting prisoners from participating in social insurance. As for Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358, it was disclosed “upon request” and not promulgated, and therefore lacks binding effect against uninformed parties. Moreover, it lacks legislative authority under the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China and constitutes an ultra vires internal rule. Its assertion that prisoners may not participate in social insurance clearly falls under the category of administrative acts that “reduce rights or increase obligations without legal basis,” as described in Article 99 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation on the Application of the Administrative Litigation Law. Therefore, it cannot serve as a basis for the government’s breach.
The applicant further notes that no existing law explicitly prohibits prisoners from participating in social insurance, and that the criminal judgments against the applicant deprived him only of personal liberty and political rights, not of social and economic rights, including social insurance. Under Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, signed by the Chinese government in 1997 and ratified in 2001, everyone enjoys the right to social security, including social insurance.
Furthermore, this case implicates the widespread practice of compulsory unpaid prison labor in China. During his periods of imprisonment, Chen Shuqing performed prison labor for a cumulative total of 10 years and 10 months. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, forced labor, discrimination, and denial of equal remuneration are prohibited. Compliance with these international obligations would require that prison labor be aligned with labor law standards, including social insurance coverage.
In conclusion, given that the applicant’s actual contributions total 24 years and 4 months; that no notice prohibiting contributions during imprisonment was ever given; that no binding law excludes prisoners from social insurance participation; that the applicant’s criminal judgments did not deprive him of social insurance rights; and that international human rights instruments guarantee universal social security, the applicant respectfully requests that the Gongshu District People’s Government uphold this application for administrative reconsideration, require the respondent to process the applicant’s retirement eligibility promptly, and fulfill its social insurance obligations based on the full contribution period.
Respectfully
submitted to:The People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City
Applicant: Chen Shuqing
Date: January 25, 2026
Attachments:
One copy of this Application for Administrative Reconsideration
Copy of the applicant’s ID card (front and back)
Applicant’s Pension Insurance Contribution Record
Notice of Handling Matters issued by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center
Notice bearing the official seal of the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center
Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Document Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358
Editor: Zhong RanProofreader: Cheng Xiaoxiao
