作者：陈树庆 编辑：冯仍 校对：冯仍 翻译：戈冰
截至2025年12月25日，陈树庆已满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。在2025年12月办理退休手续时，杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局办事人员以陈树庆于2007年因煽动颠覆国家政权罪被判刑4年和2016年因颠覆国家政权罪被判刑10年6个月为由，将社保缴费年限扣除两项刑期累加年限后，剩余缴费仅9年多，已不足最低缴费年限，拒不办理陈树庆的退休手续。
交涉中陈树庆提出政府信息公开申请，2025年12月25日杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局工作人员陈祖朋在其办公室出具《杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心办理事项告知单》、《告知书》及《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）（浙人社函[2010]358号）。
陈树庆认为前述文件所依据的法律及政策明显适用不当或效力不足，于2026年1月27日就此事申请行政复议，拱墅区人民政府于2026年2月3日予以受理。复议期间因陈树庆提出规范性文件附带审查，审理期限依法中止及恢复导致延长。2026年5月1日，陈树庆收到杭州市拱墅区人民政府于2026年4月30日作出的《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号。该《行政复议决定书》维持被申请人杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局于2025年12月25日做出的拒不办理陈树庆退休手续的《告知单》，表明陈树庆养老金维权在行政复议阶段受挫。
鉴于陈树庆本人及打工企业、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；鉴于杭州市拱墅区政府在最终做出《行政复议决定书》中，一如被申请人杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局在本案中的具体行政行为，无视人社机关在办理陈树庆退休事项中的行政失信责任（政府行为的信赖利益保障原则），无视《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，无视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），无视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；鉴于人社机关对于法律解释与适用时对己对人双重标准(同样是“范围”，自己超越法律明确规定的限制范围并严重违反同工同酬的法律要求大量使用劳务派遣，执法犯法；但以“服刑在教人员不属于职工基本养老的参保对象范围”，抵赖对陈树庆已经缴纳的社会保险责任。只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯？)。陈树庆不服，准备尽快提出行政诉讼，希望司法监督和权力制衡，在本案中能够发挥其应有的作用。
2026年5月1日
Chen Shuqing’s Administrative Review for Pension Rights Fails
Author: Chen Shuqing
Editor: Feng Reng Proofreader: Feng Reng Translator: Ge Bing
As of December 25, 2025, Chen Shuqing had reached the age of 60 years and 3 months, having actually contributed to the social insurance pool for 24 years and 4 months—exceeding the minimum contribution period of 15 years. When processing his retirement paperwork in December 2025, staff at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau in Hangzhou deducted the cumulative length of his two prison terms—a four-year sentence in 2007 for inciting subversion of state power and a 10-year-and-6-month sentence in 2016 for subversion of state power—from his total social insurance contribution period. leaving him with only slightly more than 9 years of contributions—insufficient to meet the minimum requirement—and refused to process his retirement.
During negotiations, Chen Shuqing filed a government information disclosure request. On December 25, 2025, Chen Zupeng, an official at the Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Hangzhou City, issued the “Notice of Matters Handled by the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center,” the “Notice,” and the “Reply Regarding Issues Concerning Basic Old-Age Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment” (this document was disclosed upon request) (Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358) in his office.
Chen Shuqing believed that the laws and policies upon which the aforementioned documents were based were clearly misapplied or lacked legal validity. On January 27, 2026, he filed an application for administrative reconsideration regarding this matter, which was accepted by the Gongshu District People’s Government on February 3, 2026. During the reconsideration process, the review period was extended due to Chen Shuqing’s request for a concurrent review of normative documents, resulting in the suspension and subsequent resumption of proceedings in accordance with the law. On May 1, 2026, Chen Shuqing received the “Administrative Review Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City” (Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67), issued by the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City on April 30, 2026. This “Administrative Review Decision” upheld the “Notice” issued by the respondent, the Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, on December 25, 2025, refusing to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures, indicating that Chen Shuqing’s efforts to secure his pension rights had been thwarted at the administrative review stage.
Given that Chen Shuqing himself, his employer, and his family members had never been informed that social security contributions could not be made during his period of imprisonment when paying or making up for past social security contributions; and given that the Hangzhou Gongshu District Government, in its final “Administrative Reconsideration Decision,” followed the specific administrative actions of the respondent, the Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, in this case—ignoring the administrative liability for breach of trust (the principle of safeguarding the legitimate expectations arising from government actions), disregarding the fact that neither the *Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China*, the *Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China*, nor any other normative document possessing legal status and effect under the *Legislative Law of the People’s Republic of China* contains mandatory provisions explicitly excluding social insurance participants during their incarceration; disregarding the court’s final judgment in this case, which explicitly deprived the applicant only of personal and political rights but did not deprive him of socioeconomic rights (including social insurance rights); disregarding the applicant’s participation in labor during imprisonment and the requirements for equal pay for equal work and universal, unconditional social security set forth in international conventions to which the Chinese government has acceded or ratified and which possess the force of national law; Given the double standards employed by the human resources and social security authorities in interpreting and applying the law—applying one standard to themselves and another to others (while both involve “scope,” they exceed the limits explicitly prescribed by law and seriously violate the legal requirement of equal pay for equal work by extensively using labor dispatch, thereby breaking the law while enforcing it; yet they evade their social insurance obligations toward Chen Shuqing by claiming that “inmates serving sentences do not fall within the scope of participants in the basic old-age insurance scheme for employees.” Is it a case of “the officials are allowed to set fires, but the common people are not allowed to light lamps”?). Chen Shuqing disagrees with this decision and intends to file an administrative lawsuit as soon as possible, hoping that judicial oversight and the checks and balances of power will play their due role in this case.
May 1, 2026
