原告：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.
被告一：杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局
地 址：杭州市拱墅区文晖路1号，联系电话：0571-89505558
负责人：林轶 职务：局长
被告二：杭州市拱墅区人民政府
地 址：杭州市拱墅区台州路1号，联系电话：0571-89509522
负责人：陈宇 职务：区长
案由：行政确认
诉讼请求：
一：请求被告一杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局履行法定社会保险责任，为原告及时办好退休资格确认及核定应发退休金的手续；
二：请求撤销被告二杭州市拱墅区人民政府《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号。
事实与理由：
原告陈树庆于2025年12月25日已满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，被告一杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局办事人员以原告于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剩余缴费仅9年多，已不足最低缴费年限，拒不办理原告的退休手续。
再三交涉中，原告不满被告一的工作人员停留在口头上含糊其辞的“根据相关政策”，曾提出政府信息公开申请。2025年12月25日，被告一工作人员陈祖朋在其办公室向原告出具《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），书面正式确认被告一拒不办理原告退休手续的决定。
原告认为前述文件所依据的法律适用不当，政策效力不足，于2026年1月27日就此事申请行政复议，被告二拱墅区人民政府于2026年4月30日做出的《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号维持被申请人即本案被告一拒不办理陈树庆退休手续的前述《告知单》。原告不服，现向贵院提起行政诉讼，请求依法审理，做出公正的判决。
原告认为，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，原告、原告家属、原告工作或社保挂靠的单位替原告缴纳社会保险，从未遇到服刑期间不能缴费的明确告知，甚至2025年3月10日原告最后一次刑满释放后，到被告一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（包括部分刑期内的期间）社保费用也都顺利完成。被告收取保险缴费的时候好好的，现在要被告履行保险责任的时候，突然变卦，以所谓“属于违规参保缴费”为托词，拒不履行被告应负的社会保险责任，却让缴费人本案原告陈树庆单方面承担所谓“违规”的不利后果，使得人民群众对政府行为信赖利益的保护原则荡然无存。
从被告一提供的《告知书》中可见，其推翻约定、拒不履行对原告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”。
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，对原告在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（本案：法律没有明确禁止而该《复函》加以禁止）或增加义务（结合现行政策，该《复函》的本案结果：要原告60岁后另行增加每年连续社保缴费义务直到5年后允许补足15年，才能享有早就该有的退休资格）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。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，不仅公布于形式，更应该在司法实践中适用。
原告在与被告一的工作人员交涉时，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。”当时原告申辩说：“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。”原告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，这是试图以“合法”的形式实际上超越了法律的规定，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。说其超越法律授权的用人范围，因为《劳务派遣暂行规定》第二条明确规定：“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。而且，近年来国家有关部门在纠错、改进措施中明令禁止，例如：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”。原告认为，被告一利用手中的权力对于原告的社会保险权利以“法未包含”即“违规”来“法无禁止而禁止”，对于自己大量使用劳务派遣工“法无授权”却滥用。被告一的这种做法，不仅公然违背了法治社会“公民权利法无禁止即自由，政府权力法无授权不可为”的基本要求，成为又一个类似“只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯”的典型案例。
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迫无偿劳动的问题。原告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强制服“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，将原告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，即使原告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的“公序良俗”。
综上，鉴于原告实际社保缴费24年4个月已经超过规定的最低缴费标准15年，鉴于无论第一被告出具的《告知书》、《告知单》还是第二被告做出的《复议决定书》中都无视作为一个法治政府及其机关在行政中不可忽视的下述事实及其法律效果：
（一）原告人本人及打工企业、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，在本案原告办理退休资格确认时提出《政府信息公开申请》前《浙人社函[2010]358号复函（此件依申请公开）》从未公开，不能作为政府违约赖账对抗不知情相对人，从而严重损害政府行为的信赖利益保障原则；
（二）在法律适用“范围”的解释与应用时，被告对己对人双重标准。对于自己的人员招收和使用，“法律未包含”而公然且大量使用劳务派遣工严重侵犯同工同酬的法律要求，却对原告社保权利以“法律未包含”即所谓的“违规”予以排除，这种“只许州官放火，不许百姓点灯”行径，有违于法治社会“政府行为法无授权不可为，民众行为法无禁止即自由”的基本要求；
（三）《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；
（四）法院对于本案原告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），本案被告行为是对原告超越现行法律明确规定的额外“惩罚”；
（五）原告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。
对于上述原告围绕争议焦点提出的五点理由，两被告在本案具体行政行为中如果是不能回答（认可或依法反驳），说明本案被告的行政失信行为经不起认真的依法推敲；如果是不屑回答，涉嫌权力肆无忌惮的傲慢，为建设法治社会、建立法治政府之大忌，更加应该加以制止和防范。
至此，原告特提起本案行政诉讼，请求贵院依法审判此案，对原告的诉讼请求予以支持，促使被告一及时办理原告的退休资格并履行对原告按照缴费24年4个月年限应负的社会保险责任，同时撤销被告二做出的《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号。
此致！
杭州市拱墅区人民法院
具状人：陈树庆
2026年5月12 日
附：
一、 本诉状副本2份；
二、 原告陈树庆身份证复印件包含正反两面1份；
三、《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、 盖有“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、《浙人社函[2010]358号》1份；
七、《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号1份；
Administrative Complaint
Plaintiff: Chen Shuqing, male, native of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Daguan Yuan Dong Wu Yuan, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, ID Number: 330106196509260073, Contact Phone: 15958160478.
Defendant One: Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City
Address: No. 1 Wenhui Road, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, Contact Phone: 0571-89505558
Responsible Person: Lin Yi
Position: Director
Defendant Two: People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City
Address: No. 1 Taizhou Road, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, Contact Phone: 0571-89509522
Responsible Person: Chen Yu
Position: District Mayor
Cause of Action: Administrative Confirmation
Claims:
1.Request Defendant One, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, to fulfill its statutory social insurance responsibilities and timely complete the procedures for confirming the retirement qualification of the Plaintiff and verifying the retirement pension due;
2.Request to revoke the “Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City” Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67 issued by Defendant Two, the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City.
Facts and Reasons:
The Plaintiff, Chen Shuqing, reached the age of 60 years and 3 months on December 25, 2025. He has actually paid into the social insurance pool for 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum payment period of 15 years. When handling retirement procedures in December 2025, the staff of Defendant One, the Human Resources and Social Security Bureau of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, on the grounds that the Plaintiff was sentenced to 4 years in prison in 2007 for the crime of inciting subversion of state power and 10 years and 6 months in prison in 2016 for the crime of subverting state power, deducted the total accumulated years of the two prison sentences from the social security payment period, leaving the remaining payment period at only 9-plus years, which is less than the minimum payment period, and refused to process the Plaintiff’s retirement procedures.
During repeated negotiations, the Plaintiff was dissatisfied with Defendant One’s staff members remaining at the level of verbal, ambiguous statements regarding “according to relevant policies,” and previously submitted an application for government information disclosure. On December 25, 2025, Chen Zupeng, a staff member of Defendant One, issued to the Plaintiff in his office the “Handling Matters Notification Form of the Social Insurance Management and Service Center of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City,” the “Notification Letter,” and the “Reply Concerning Issues Related to Basic Endowment Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This Document Disclosed Upon Application)” (Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358), formally and in writing confirming Defendant One’s decision to refuse to process the Plaintiff’s retirement procedures.
The Plaintiff believes that the files mentioned above apply the law improperly and lack sufficient policy validity. He applied for administrative reconsideration regarding this matter on January 27, 2026. The “Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City” Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67, made by Defendant Two, the People’s Government of Gongshu District, on April 30, 2026, sustained the aforementioned “Notification Form” by which the respondent (namely Defendant One in this case) refused to handle Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures. The Plaintiff does not accept this and now files an administrative lawsuit with your Honorable Court, requesting a trial in accordance with the law and a just judgment.
The Plaintiff believes that the spirit of contract is the cornerstone for the stable operation of a modern civilized society. The people take officials as their teachers; for the whole society to be honest and trustworthy, government behavior must set an example. In this case, for more than 20 years, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s family members, and the units where the Plaintiff worked or where his social security was registered paid social insurance for the Plaintiff. They never encountered any clear notification that payments could not be made during the period of serving a sentence. Even after the Plaintiff was released from prison for the last time upon completion of his sentence on March 10, 2025, he went several times to Defendant One’s government service center located at No. 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District, to make up for the broken payments of recent years (including periods within part of the prison terms), and all were successfully completed. The Defendant was perfectly fine when collecting insurance premium payments, but now, when the Defendant is required to fulfill its insurance responsibilities, it suddenly changes its mind. Using the so-called “belonging to non-compliant participation in insurance and premium payment” as a pretext, it refuses to perform the social insurance responsibilities that the Defendant should bear, but makes the payer, the Plaintiff Chen Shuqing in this case, unilaterally bear the adverse consequences of the so-called “non-compliance,” causing the principle of protecting the trust interest of the masses in government behavior to completely vanish.
As can be seen from the “Notification Letter” provided by Defendant One, its reasons for overturning the agreement and refusing to fulfill the social insurance responsibility toward the Plaintiff are: according to Paragraph 1 of Article 2 of the “Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China,” “This Law applies to enterprises and individual economic organizations (hereinafter collectively referred to as employing units) within the territory of the People’s Republic of China and laborers who form a labor relationship with them,” and Article 72, “Employing units and laborers must participate in social insurance and pay social insurance premiums in accordance with the law”; Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the “Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China,” “Employees shall participate in basic endowment insurance, and basic endowment insurance premiums shall be jointly paid by employing units and employees. Individual industrial and commercial households without employees, part-time employees who do not participate in basic endowment insurance in employing units, and other flexible employment personnel may participate in basic endowment insurance, and basic endowment insurance premiums shall be paid by individuals”; and the provisions of the “Reply of the Department of Human Resources and Social Security of Zhejiang Province Concerning Issues Related to Basic Endowment Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment” (Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358) stating that “Persons serving sentences during the period of serving sentences do not belong to the targets of participation in basic endowment insurance for employees.”
Obviously, the provisions in the aforementioned “Labor Law” and “Social Insurance Law,” including the “Regulations of Zhejiang Province on Basic Endowment Insurance for Employees,” require employing units and laborers to pay social insurance premiums. The legislative purpose is to protect the social insurance rights of employed personnel, and there is no mandatory provision inside stating that “persons serving sentences cannot participate in social insurance.” As for the “Reply” Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358, it is marked as “(This Document Disclosed Upon Application).” According to the legal principle that a law does not take effect unless it is promulgated, “disclosed upon application” cannot be equated with “promulgation” and has no effect against an uninformed counterpart. The date on which the “Reply” was made is “September 30, 2010,” and the date of printing and distribution is October 9, 2010. It obviously has no retroactive effect on the four-year period of the Plaintiff’s first prison sentence, which had already ended on September 13, 2010. Furthermore, the “Reply” does not possess the status and effect of laws, administrative regulations, local regulations, autonomous regulations, separate regulations, or rules under the “Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China.” It belongs to a “game rule” formulated by a government department without legislative power for itself, acting as “both the athlete and the referee.” The phrase “persons serving sentences cannot participate in social insurance” referred to therein clearly falls under Article 99 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the ‘Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China'” (effective February 8, 2018), which outlines typical circumstances regarding administrative subjects being “seriously and obviously illegal.” Specifically: “Second, administrative acts that reduce rights (in this case: prohibited by the ‘Reply’ while not explicitly prohibited by law) or increase obligations (combined with current policies, the result of the ‘Reply’ in this case: requiring the Plaintiff to separately increase the obligation of continuous social security payments every year after the age of 60 until 5 years later when it is allowed to make up the full 15 years, before being able to enjoy the retirement qualification he should have had long ago) have no legal basis.” Therefore, the “Reply” cannot serve as a basis for the government itself to breach the contract. As the saying goes, “A law cannot stand without virtue.” The principle of a good law, such as Article 99 of the Supreme Court’s “Interpretation” on the application of administrative litigation, should not only be published in form but should be applied even more in judicial practice.
When the Plaintiff was negotiating with the staff of Defendant One, a staff member explained: “During your time in prison, you were unable to become a real laborer of a paying enterprise as stipulated in the aforementioned legal clauses such as the ‘Labor Law.’ Your employee endowment insurance was merely a virtual form of payment on your behalf, which does not comply with the provisions of laws and policies.” At that time, the Plaintiff defended himself by saying: “Payment of social security on behalf of others has not been explicitly prohibited by law to this day; it is a policy that has been defaulted to and widely implemented in practice since the overall pooling of social insurance began. For nearly twenty years, many front-line staff members of state organs and public institutions, including your human resources and social security departments, have not actually worked at labor dispatch units, but have had their remuneration paid and social security premiums paid on their behalf by labor dispatch units. You cannot have double standards for others and for yourselves.” They replied: “Labor dispatch has laws to rely on.” After the event, the Plaintiff further understood the laws, regulations, rules regarding labor dispatch and the history and current situation of state organs and public institutions using dispatched workers, and discovered that this is an attempt to actually transcend the provisions of the law in a “legal” form, covering up the status-based occupational discrimination caused by the actual dual-track system inside and outside the staff establishment. It is an act that seriously violates the “equal pay for equal work” requirement of laws such as the “Labor Law” and the “Labor Contract Law.” It transcends the scope of personnel use authorized by law because Article 2 of the “Interim Provisions on Labor Dispatch” explicitly stipulates: “This Provision applies where labor dispatch units engage in labor dispatch business and enterprises (hereinafter referred to as employing units) use dispatched laborers. Where partnership organizations such as accounting firms and law firms established according to law, as well as organizations such as foundations and private non-enterprise units use dispatched laborers, they shall execute in accordance with this Provision.” It does not list state organs and public institutions among the employing units that use dispatched laborers. Moreover, in recent years, relevant state departments have explicitly prohibited this in measures for correcting errors and making improvements. For example, Article 10 of the Ministry of Finance Decree No. 102 “Administrative Measures for Government Procurement of Services” stipulates: “The following items shall not be included in the scope of government procurement of services: … the recruitment and hiring of personnel by the purchasing entity, the use of labor in the form of labor dispatch, and the setting up of public welfare posts.” The Plaintiff believes that Defendant One uses the power in its hands to “prohibit what is not prohibited by law” by labeling the Plaintiff’s social insurance rights as “non-compliant” because they are “not included in the law,” while abusing its own power to extensively use dispatched workers despite having “no authorization by law.” This practice of Defendant One not only openly violates the basic requirement of a society under the rule of law that “for citizens, what is not prohibited by law is freedom; for the government, power cannot be exercised without authorization by law,” but also becomes another typical case similar to “the magistrate may light a fire, while the common people are forbid even to light a lamp.”
The Applicant believes that he has reached the statutory age and is qualified for and entitled to enjoy retirement benefits. Apart from the aforementioned years of actual premium payments and the principle of protecting the trust interest in the government, there is no single clause in any current law that explicitly stipulates that persons serving sentences must not participate in social insurance (including social security premium payments) during the period of serving sentences. In the judgment documents of the two sentences against the Applicant, the deprivation of personal freedom and political rights for a certain period was adjudged, but the deprivation of socio-economic rights—which naturally includes the right to enjoy social insurance—was not adjudged. According to the provisions of Article 9 of the “International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,” which was signed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on October 27, 1997, approved by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress on February 28, 2001, and already possesses legal validity: “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.” The Applicant, Chen Shuqing, does not cease to be part of “everyone” just because he served a sentence, and he should enjoy social insurance.
Furthermore, if this case is further expanded, it also involves the problem of forced unpaid labor of prisoners that is widespread in Chinese prisons. During the Plaintiff Chen Shuqing’s first imprisonment, from January 2008 to September 2010, totaling 2 years and 8 months, he participated in the production of foreign trade luggage and bags for 3 months in the Seventh Ward of the Sixth Sub-prison of Qiaosi Prison, Zhejiang Province, and performed preliminary processing of dishes in the kitchen vegetable team for 2 years and 5 months; during his second imprisonment, from January 2017 to March 2025, totaling 8 years and 2 months, he participated in the production of foreign trade luggage and bags for 3 months in the Six Ward of the Third Sub-prison of Qiaosi Prison, Zhejiang Province, and cooked prisoners’ staple food in the kitchen pastry team for 7 years and 11 months. During the two prison terms, excluding scattered labor in the detention center during the first imprisonment, he actually participated in prison labor for a cumulative total of 10 years and 10 months. Therefore, according to Article 4 of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”; Article 22: “Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality”; Article 23, Paragraph (2): “Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.” The “International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” signed by the Government of the People’s Republic of China on October 5, 1998, also has relevant provisions stating that “No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labor.” According to the requirements of these international laws, even if prison inmates are sentenced according to law and perform forced “hard labor” with rehabilitation as the goal, it should also be connected with the corresponding equal pay for equal work and social insurance under the “Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China.” If our government, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, can abide by these declarations and covenants, and take into consideration and implement the labor remuneration and social security that the Plaintiff should have had for participating in labor during his prison terms, even if the payments made by the Plaintiff himself and his relatives’ or friends’ working units during his prison terms do not count or if no payments were made, it would still be enough for more than 15 years to qualify for retirement and relevant procedures.
Of course, the government’s compliance with the “International Covenants” it has signed, and some of which it has approved, is not only a requirement for administration according to law in a rule-of-law society, but also the baseline “public order and good customs” of a civilized society.
To sum up, in view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s actual social security payment of 24 years and 4 months has already exceeded the stipulated minimum payment standard of 15 years, and in view of the fact that whether in the “Notification Letter” and “Notification Form” issued by the First Defendant or the “Reconsideration Decision” made by the Second Defendant, they all ignore the following facts and their legal effects, which cannot be neglected in the administration of a government under the rule of law and its organs:
(1) The Plaintiff himself, the enterprises where he worked, and his family members never encountered any notification that payments could not be made during the period of serving sentences when paying or making up social security expenses in the past. Before the Plaintiff in this case submitted the “Application for Government Information Disclosure” when processing his retirement qualification confirmation, the “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Reply (This Document Disclosed Upon Application)” had never been made public. It cannot be used as a basis for the government to breach the contract and deny debts against an uninformed counterpart, thereby seriously damaging the principle of protecting trust interests in government behavior;
(2) When interpreting and applying the “scope” of legal application, the Defendants use double standards for themselves and for others. For the recruitment and use of their own personnel, they openly and extensively use dispatched workers despite it being “not included in the law,” which seriously violates the legal requirement of equal pay for equal work; yet, they exclude the Plaintiff’s social security rights by labeling them as so-called “non-compliant” because they are “not included in the law.” This act of “the magistrate may light a fire, while the common people are forbid even to light a lamp” violates the basic requirements of a rule-of-law society that “government behavior cannot be done without authorization by law, and public behavior is freedom if not prohibited by law”;
(3) The “Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China,” the “Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China,” and any other normative document possessing legal status and validity included under the “Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China” do not contain mandatory clauses explicitly excluding social security participants during their prison sentences;
(4) The legally effective judgments of the court against the Plaintiff in this case only explicitly deprived him of his personal freedom and political rights, and did not deprive him of his socio-economic rights (including the right to social insurance). The behavior of the Defendants in this case is an extra “punishment” on the Plaintiff that transcends the explicit provisions of current laws;
(5) The fact that the Plaintiff participated in labor during his prison sentences and the international covenants joined or approved by our government that possess national legal validity require equal pay for equal work and universal social security without exception for citizens.
Regarding the above five reasons raised by the Plaintiff around the focus of the dispute, if the two Defendants cannot answer them (either accept them or refute them according to law) in the specific administrative acts of this case, it shows that the Defendant’s administrative dishonesty cannot withstand serious scrutiny according to law; if they disdain to answer, it involves the reckless arrogance of power, which is a great taboo in building a society under the rule of law and establishing a government under the rule of law, and should be all the more stopped and guarded against.
At this juncture, the Plaintiff specially files this administrative lawsuit, requesting your Honorable Court to try this case in accordance with the law, support the Plaintiff’s claims, urge Defendant One to timely handle the Plaintiff’s retirement qualification and fulfill the social insurance responsibilities it should bear according to the payment period of 24 years and 4 months, and simultaneously revoke the “Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City” Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67 made by Defendant Two.
Sincerely,
To: People’s Court of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City
Complainant: Chen Shuqing
May 12, 2026
Enclosures:
1.Two copies of this Complaint;
2.One copy of the Plaintiff Chen Shuqing’s ID card, including both the front and back sides;
3.One copy of the “Proof of Historical Participation in Endowment Insurance”;
4.One copy of the “Handling Matters Notification Form of the Social Insurance Management and Service Center of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City”;
5.One copy of the “Notification Letter” stamped with the seal of the “Social Insurance Management and Service Center of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City”;
6.One copy of “Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358”;
7.One copy of the “Administrative Reconsideration Decision of the People’s Government of Gongshu District, Hangzhou City” Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67.
