作者：陈树庆
原告陈树庆诉杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局、杭州市拱墅区人民政府关于陈树庆领取养老金资格及核定有效缴费年限的“行政确认及行政复议”一案，经过近四个月的周折，2026年9月2日，终于收到杭州市拱墅区人民法院正式书面受理答复。立个案，有多难，不妨回顾如下：
2026年5月12日，原告陈树庆将《起诉书》通过邮局特快专递寄至拱墅区人民法院。邮件查询单显示2026年5月13日上午09:02【单位收发室签收】，后经2026年5月26日上午9时许、6月9日上午9时15分左右、6月25日上午9时许分三次到位于本市香积寺东路109号杭州市拱墅区人民法院询问立案情况，并且于6月9日上午9:30分左右和6月26日下午14:45分左右，分别向行政立案窗口给我的立案监督电话89508823询问立案情况，都是回答我他们没有收到，让我等等。原告陈树庆感觉此种情况很不正常，质疑法院是否也在玩“躺平”，窗口人员就透露说可能案子比较复杂，让我再等有消息会及时通知我。
2026年7月14日上午9:40分许，离提交起诉状都超过两个月了，陈树庆再次到拱墅区人民法院行政立案窗口查询。窗口办事人员先让我等等，约5分钟后出来，她先后叫来两个保安当面删除我手机上他们怀疑我在办理立案时的录音记录，并明确告知我立案窗口严禁录音、录像、拍照。我想在任何严禁录音、录像、拍摄的地方，一旦对现场所发生的事实产生争议，应该是举证责任倒置，让严禁录音、录像、拍摄而自己遍布摄像头的一方负举证责任，所以也任由他们删除我手机上他们认为应该删除的记录，并对着一位正在删除我手机记录、胸前佩戴执法记录仪的保安大声说“里面的录音记录都是客观事实，你们不应该删除，希望不要为赖皮销毁证据”。这位保安笑着说“我们按规定删除，法院不会赖皮的”。待他们删除我手机记录后，窗口办事人员退回法院最初收到的起诉状，要我按照他们提出的要求修改起诉状，说里面不允许出现有关国际公约，不允许有奴役劳动的问题等等。我说“诉状里援引的国际公约是全国人大常委会已经批准，不允许奴役劳动是里面具体条款的规定，中国监狱里普遍存在的强迫无偿劳动也是事实，诉状里的任何内容我原告提出来了，如果法院认为不是实情不合法或无理，完全可以判决驳斥与驳回，不让原告提出来，不合理、不公正应该也不合法”。但立案窗口工作人员说：这里是中国法院、这里是行政审判庭，你不同意我们的要求修改，就不立案好了。
为了固定诉讼进程防止法院推脱不予立案，我只好按照立案窗口人员的要求修改了起诉状，7月14日下午14:55左右，我将删减修改后的《行政起诉状》提交给行政起诉窗口，窗口工作人员反复检查后让我在签名、日期上分别签注陈树庆、2026年7月14日，并在日期后写明“修改稿”后，收下诉状。我问她可以立案了吗，他说“要给法官看过再定，好了我会电话通知的”，我说不要又是一拖2个月还没有个立案结果，她说“法律有规定，7个工作日内会给你答复”，我就放心地离开法院。2026年7月22日上午9时10分左右，我再次来到拱墅法院立案窗口询问立案情况，窗口人员要求对《行政起诉状》的案由和诉讼请求进行规范化调整和补正，当天下午我将再次修改补正改后的《行政起诉状》提交给行政立案窗口。又等了十几天没有消息，2026年8月5日9时10分左右，我再次来到拱墅法院行政立案窗口了解立案情况，窗口人员说7月29日已经立案，我索要立案的案号，窗口人员给我手抄了一张小贴纸，上面写着“2026浙0105行诉前调139号，邓法官胡书记员89508971”并告知我等副本送达被告，被告回复是否同意诉前调解后才能正式立案，要到8月底9月初会有该阶段的结果。
2026年9月2日，原告陈树庆收到拱墅法院的邮政特快专递（EMS），书面印有“2026浙0105行诉前调139号”，里面有《司法公正码告知书》1份，本案两被告杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局、杭州市拱墅区人民政府向法院提交的本案行政答辩状、证据清单及证据等。至此，陈树庆养老金维权行政起诉，自最初提交行政起诉状后近四个月，总算收到了正式的书面答复。从程序上及手续上看，仍处于诉前调解阶段，虽然被告已经提交答辩状已经明确拒绝诉前调解让步，由于还没有拿到正式的立案通知及本行政诉讼案的案号，应该说本案仍处在法院已经受理但还没有正式立案状态。
对照一下《中华人民共和国行政诉讼法》第五十一条“人民法院在接到起诉状时对符合本法规定的起诉条件的，应当登记立案。”“对当场不能判定是否符合本法规定的起诉条件的，应当接收起诉状，出具注明收到日期的书面凭证，并在七日内决定是否立案。不符合起诉条件的，作出不予立案的裁定。裁定书应当载明不予立案的理由。原告对裁定不服的，可以提起上诉。”“起诉状内容欠缺或者有其他错误的，应当给予指导和释明，并一次性告知当事人需要补正的内容。不得未经指导和释明即以起诉不符合条件为由不接收起诉状。”“对于不接收起诉状、接收起诉状后不出具书面凭证，以及不一次性告知当事人需要补正的起诉状内容的，当事人可以向上级人民法院投诉，上级人民法院应当责令改正，并对直接负责的主管人员和其他直接责任人员依法给予处分。”第六十七条的规定“人民法院应当在立案之日起五日内，将起诉状副本发送被告。被告应当在收到起诉状副本之日起十五日内向人民法院提交作出行政行为的证据和所依据的规范性文件，并提出答辩状。人民法院应当在收到答辩状之日起五日内，将答辩状副本发送原告。” 感慨多多。
本案7月22日修改后法院才接受的《行政起诉状》，删除了最初起诉状中我国政府签署及全国人大常委会批准的人权公约之援引，删除了监狱强迫无偿劳动的内容，虽然少了这两项原告主张的有力支持，但考虑到本案到目前的状况，行政行为停留在过错方行政机关不承担责任而让无过错方失去信赖利益保护原则来承担责任的悖理状态，鉴于的原告递交、法院最终接受的《行政起诉状》理由也足够充分有力，我知道每个法院显目处信誓旦旦的“让人民群众在每一个司法案件中感受到公平正义”标语，势必面临再一次严峻的考验。
7月22日原告修正后提交、法院接受的《行政起诉状》如下 ：
行 政 起 诉 状
原告：陈树庆，男，汉族，1965年9月26日出生，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：行政确认及行政复议
诉讼请求：
一：请求撤销被告一杭州市拱墅区人力资源和社会保障局于2025年12月25日对原告做出的《办理事项告知单》；
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，作出公正的判决。
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。
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。
对于上述原告围绕争议焦点提出的三点理由，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，撤销被告一于2025年12月25日对原告做出的《办理事项告知单》及被告二做出的《杭州市拱墅区人民政府行政复议决定书》杭拱政复[2026]67号，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。
此致
杭州市拱墅区人民法院
具状人：陈树庆
2026年 7 月 22 日（修改稿）
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》复印件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》影印件1份；
五、盖“杭州市拱墅区社会保险管理服务中心”印章的《告知书》复印件1份；
六、《浙人社函[2010]358号》影印件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号复印件1份。
编辑：李晶 校对：王滨 翻译：沈美花
Chen Shuqing Receives Written Response Nearly Four Months After Filing Pension Rights Lawsuit
Author: Chen Shuqing
In the case of plaintiff Chen Shuqing suing the Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau and the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government regarding “Administrative Confirmation and Administrative Review” over Chen Shuqing’s pension eligibility and verified effective contribution period, after nearly four months of twists and turns, on September 2, 2026, a formal written response of case acceptance was finally received from the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Court. As to how difficult it is to get a case filed, one might review the timeline as follows:
On May 12, 2026, the plaintiff Chen Shuqing sent the Complaint to the Gongshu District People’s Court via Postal Express Mail (EMS). Postal tracking records show it was [Signed by Unit Mailroom] at 09:02 AM on May 13, 2026. Subsequently, I went three times to inquire about the case filing status at the Gongshu District People’s Court of Hangzhou City, located at No. 109 Xiangjisi East Road in this city—at around 9:00 AM on May 26, 2026, around 9:15 AM on June 9, and around 9:00 AM on June 25. Furthermore, at around 9:30 AM on June 9 and around 2:45 PM on June 26, I respectively called 89508823—the filing supervision telephone number provided to me by the administrative case filing window—to inquire about the case filing status. On each occasion, the response was that they had not received it and told me to wait. Feeling that this situation was highly abnormal, plaintiff Chen Shuqing questioned whether the court was also playing “lying flat” [slacking off]. The window staff member then revealed that the case might be relatively complex and told me to wait further, saying I would be notified promptly once there was news.
At around 9:40 AM on July 14, 2026—more than two months after submitting the complaint—Chen Shuqing again went to the administrative filing window of the Gongshu District People’s Court to inquire. The window staff member first asked me to wait, came out about 5 minutes later, and sequentially called two security guards to delete, right in front of me, audio recording entries on my mobile phone that they suspected were made while I was undergoing the case filing process. She explicitly informed me that audio recording, video recording, and photography are strictly prohibited at the case filing window. I thought that in any place where audio recording, video recording, and photography are strictly prohibited, once a dispute arises over the facts occurring on site, the burden of proof should be inverted, placing the burden of proof on the party that strictly prohibits recording while covering the area with its own surveillance cameras. Therefore, I allowed them to delete the records on my mobile phone that they deemed should be deleted, and said loudly to a security guard wearing an enforcement recorder on his chest who was deleting my phone records: “The audio records inside are objective facts, you should not delete them; I hope you will not destroy evidence just to renege.” The security guard smiled and said, “We delete them according to regulations, the court will not renege.” After they deleted the records on my mobile phone, the window staff member returned the complaint originally received by the court and required me to modify the complaint according to their demands, saying that references to international conventions and issues concerning enslaved labor were not allowed to appear inside. I said: “The international conventions cited in the complaint have already been ratified by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress; the prohibition of enslaved labor is a specific provision within those terms; the widespread existence of forced unpaid labor in Chinese prisons is also a fact. If I, the plaintiff, raise any content in the complaint and the court considers it untrue, unlawful, or unreasonable, the court can fully rule to refute and dismiss it. Preventing the plaintiff from raising it in the first place is unreasonable, unfair, and ought to be unlawful as well.” However, the filing window staff member said: This is a Chinese court, this is an administrative trial division; if you do not agree to modify it according to our demands, then the case simply will not be filed.
In order to lock in the litigation process and prevent the court from evading case registration, I had no choice but to modify the complaint according to the demands of the filing window staff. At around 2:55 PM on July 14, I submitted the redacted and modified Administrative Complaint to the administrative filing window. After checking it repeatedly, the window staff member instructed me to sign and date it as Chen Shuqing and July 14, 2026, respectively, and to write “Revised Draft” clearly after the date before accepting the complaint. I asked her if the case could be filed now, and she said, “It has to be reviewed by a judge before a decision is made; once it’s ready, I will notify you by phone.” I said not to let another two months drag on without a filing result, and she replied, “The law provides that a response will be given to you within 7 working days.” I then left the court with peace of mind. At around 9:10 AM on July 22, 2026, I returned to the filing window of the Gongshu Court to inquire about the case filing status. The window staff member requested that the cause of action and litigation requests in the Administrative Complaint undergo standardized adjustment and correction. That afternoon, I submitted the re-modified and corrected Administrative Complaint to the administrative filing window. After waiting for another ten-plus days without news, at around 9:10 AM on August 5, 2026, I went again to the administrative filing window of the Gongshu Court to check on the case status. The window staff member said the case had already been filed on July 29. I asked for the case number, and the window staff member handwrote a small sticky note for me, which read “2026 Zhe 0105 Xing Su Qian Tiao No. 139, Judge Deng & Clerk Hu, 89508971,” and informed me to wait for the duplicate copy to be served on the defendants. Only after the defendants replied whether they agreed to pre-litigation mediation could the case be formally filed, and that the results for this stage would come around late August or early September.
On September 2, 2026, plaintiff Chen Shuqing received a Postal Express Mail (EMS) from the Gongshu Court, printed with “2026 Zhe 0105 Xing Su Qian Tiao No. 139.” Inside was one copy of the Notice on Judicial Fairness Code, as well as administrative defense statements, evidence lists, and evidence submitted to the court by the two defendants in this case—the Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau and the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government. Thus, nearly four months after the initial submission of the administrative complaint, Chen Shuqing’s administrative lawsuit for pension rights defense finally received a formal written response. From a procedural and formal standpoint, it remains in the pre-litigation mediation stage; although the defendants have submitted defense statements explicitly refusing to make concessions in pre-litigation mediation, because a formal notice of case filing and an official case number for this administrative litigation have not yet been obtained, it should be said that this case is still in a state where the court has accepted it but has not formally filed it on the docket.
Comparing this with Article 51 of the Administrative Litigation Law of the People’s Republic of China—”When receiving a complaint, if the conditions for prosecution provided for in this Law are met, the people’s court shall register and file the case.” “Where it cannot be determined on the spot whether the conditions for prosecution provided for in this Law are met, the complaint shall be received, a written receipt bearing the date of receipt shall be issued, and a decision on whether to file the case shall be made within seven days. If the conditions for prosecution are not met, a ruling not to file the case shall be made. The written ruling shall state the reasons for not filing the case. If the plaintiff is dissatisfied with the ruling, an appeal may be filed.” “Where the content of the complaint is deficient or contains other errors, guidance and explanation shall be provided, and the party shall be informed at one time of the content requiring correction. The complaint shall not be refused without guidance and explanation on the grounds that prosecution conditions are not met.” “Where a complaint is not received, where a written receipt is not issued after receiving a complaint, or where the party is not informed at one time of the content of the complaint requiring correction, the party may lodge a complaint with the people’s court at a higher level; the people’s court at a higher level shall order corrections and lawfully impose sanctions on the directly responsible person in charge and other directly responsible personnel.”—and Article 67—”The people’s court shall send a copy of the complaint to the defendant within five days from the date of case filing. The defendant shall submit evidence for the administrative act made and the normative documents on which it is based to the people’s court within fifteen days from the date of receiving the copy of the complaint, and present a defense statement. The people’s court shall send a copy of the defense statement to the plaintiff within five days from the date of receiving the defense statement”—I am filled with profound reflections.
The Administrative Complaint accepted by the court after modification on July 22 removed the citations to human rights conventions signed by our government and approved by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress contained in the original complaint, and removed content regarding forced unpaid labor in prison. Although it lacks these two items of powerful support advocated by the plaintiff, considering the status of this case up to the present, the administrative act remains in a paradoxical state where the administrative organ at fault bears no responsibility while the non-fault party is made to bear responsibility in violation of the principle of protection of legitimate expectations. Given that the reasons in the Administrative Complaint submitted by the plaintiff and ultimately accepted by the court are sufficiently ample and powerful, I know that the slogan solemnly displayed in prominent places in every court—”Let the people feel fairness and justice in every judicial case”—is bound to face another severe test.
The Administrative Complaint submitted by the plaintiff after corrections on July 22 and accepted by the court is as follows:
ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff: Chen Shuqing, Male, Han ethnicity, born September 26, 1965, native of Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, currently residing at Room 202, Unit 5, Building 6, Daguan Yuan East 5th Court, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, ID No.: 330106196509260073, Contact Tel: 15958160478.
Defendant 1: Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau
Address: No. 1 Wenhui Road, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, Contact Tel: 0571-89505558
Person in Charge: Lin Yi, Position: Director
Defendant 2: Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government
Address: No. 1 Taizhou Road, Gongshu District, Hangzhou City, Contact Tel: 0571-89509522
Person in Charge: Chen Yu, Position: District Mayor
Cause of Action: Administrative Confirmation and Administrative Review
Litigation Requests:
1. Request to revoke the Notice of Transaction Matters issued to the plaintiff by Defendant 1, Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, on December 25, 2025;
2. Request to revoke the Administrative Review Decision of the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67 issued by Defendant 2, Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government.
Facts and Reasons:
As of December 25, 2025, plaintiff Chen Shuqing reached the age of 60 years and 3 months, with an actual accumulated social insurance contribution period of 24 years and 4 months, exceeding the minimum contribution requirement of 15 years. When processing retirement procedures in December 2025, staff of Defendant 1, Hangzhou Gongshu District Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, on the grounds that the plaintiff was sentenced to 4 years in prison in 2007 for the crime of incitement to subvert state power and 10 years and 6 months in prison in 2016 for the crime of subverting state power, deducted the combined years of the two prison sentences from the social insurance contribution period. This left a remaining contribution period of only 9-plus years, falling short of the minimum contribution period, and they refused to process the plaintiff’s retirement procedures.
In repeated negotiations, dissatisfied with Defendant 1’s staff remaining at vague verbal statements about “according to relevant policies,” the plaintiff submitted an application for disclosure of government information. On December 25, 2025, Chen Zupeng, a staff member of Defendant 1, issued to the plaintiff in his office the Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center Notice of Transaction Matters, the Notice Letter, and the Reply Letter Regarding Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (This Document Disclosed Upon Application) (Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358), formally confirming in writing Defendant 1’s decision refusing to process the plaintiff’s retirement procedures.
The plaintiff holds that the legal application relied upon in the aforementioned documents is improper and the policy validity is insufficient. On January 27, 2026, the plaintiff applied for administrative review regarding this matter. On April 30, 2026, Defendant 2, Gongshu District People’s Government, issued the Administrative Review Decision of the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67, upholding the applicant’s (Defendant 1 in this case) aforementioned Notice Letter refusing to process Chen Shuqing’s retirement procedures. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff now files an administrative lawsuit with your Court, requesting a lawful trial and a fair judgment.
The plaintiff holds that the spirit of contract is the cornerstone for the stable operation of a modern civilized society; the people take officials as their model, and in the honest and trustworthy behavior of the entire society, government conduct must set an example. In this case, over the past 20-plus years, when the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s family, or the units to which the plaintiff’s employment or social insurance was attached paid social insurance premiums for the plaintiff, they never encountered any explicit notification that payments could not be made during imprisonment. Even after the plaintiff’s final release from prison upon serving his sentence on March 10, 2025, when the plaintiff went several times to Defendant 1’s government service center located at No. 58 Xiangjisi East Road, Gongshu District, to retroactively pay missed social insurance fees for recent years (including periods within part of the prison terms), those transactions were successfully completed. When accepting insurance payments, the defendant was perfectly fine with it; now when the defendant is required to fulfill insurance obligations, it suddenly changes its tune, using the pretext of “belonging to non-compliant participation and payment” to refuse fulfilling the social insurance obligations it ought to bear, while making the payer—the plaintiff Chen Shuqing in this case—unilaterally bear the adverse consequences of the alleged “non-compliance.” This causes the principle of protection of legitimate expectations of the masses regarding government conduct to vanish completely.
As seen from the Notice Letter provided by Defendant 1, the reasons for its repudiation of the agreement and refusal to fulfill social insurance obligations toward the plaintiff are: According to Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Law of the People’s Republic of China (“This Law applies to enterprises, individual economic organizations [hereinafter collectively referred to as employing units] and workers who form a labor relationship with them within the territory of the People’s Republic of China”) and Article 72 (“Employing units and workers must participate in social insurance and pay social insurance premiums in accordance with the law”); Article 10, Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Social Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China (“Employees shall participate in basic pension insurance, and basic pension insurance premiums shall be jointly paid by employing units and employees. Individual industrial and commercial households without employees, part-time employees not participating in basic pension insurance with employing units, and other flexibly employed personnel may participate in basic pension insurance, with individual payment of basic pension insurance premiums”); and the provisions of the Reply Letter of the Zhejiang Provincial Department of Human Resources and Social Security Regarding Issues Concerning Basic Pension Insurance for Persons Sentenced to Fixed-Term Imprisonment (Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358) that “serving prisoners during their imprisonment do not belong to the scope of participants in employee basic pension insurance.”
It is obvious that the provisions in the aforementioned Labor Law and Social Insurance Law, as well as the Regulations of Zhejiang Province on Employee Basic Pension Insurance, require employing units and workers to pay social insurance premiums, and the legislative purpose is to safeguard the social insurance rights of employed personnel; there is no mandatory provision stating that “serving prisoners cannot participate in social insurance.” As for Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Reply Letter, it is marked “(This Document Disclosed Upon Application).” According to the principle that laws do not take effect without publication, “disclosed upon application” cannot be equated with “promulgation,” and has no binding force against uninformed counterparties; the date of issuance of the Reply Letter is “September 30, 2010,” and the print date is October 9, 2010, which clearly has no retroactive effect on the plaintiff’s four-year payment period during his first prison sentence that had already ended on September 13, 2010; moreover, the Reply Letter 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, belonging instead to “game rules” formulated by a government department lacking legislative power acting as “both athlete and referee.” The assertion inside that “serving prisoners cannot participate in social insurance” 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) regarding typical circumstances where an administrative entity commits a “grave and obvious violation of law”—namely: “Second, administrative acts that reduce rights (in this case: where law does not explicitly prohibit, the Reply Letter imposes a prohibition) or increase obligations (combined with current policy, the result of the Reply Letter in this case: requiring the plaintiff, after age 60, to incur additional continuous social insurance payment obligations annually for another 5 years until reaching 15 years, before being permitted retirement eligibility that should have already existed) without legal basis.” Therefore, the Reply Letter cannot serve as a basis for the government itself to breach the agreement. As the saying goes, “Law cannot stand without virtue”; the principle of a good law, such as Article 99 of the Supreme People’s Court’s Interpretation regarding administrative litigation, should not only be promulgated formally, but must also be applied in judicial practice.
When the plaintiff negotiated with Defendant 1’s staff, a staff member explained: “During your imprisonment, you were unable to become a real worker of a paying enterprise as stipulated in the legal clauses of the aforementioned Labor Law; your employee pension insurance was merely a virtual agency payment form, which does not comply with the provisions of law and policy.” At that time, the plaintiff argued: “Agency payment of social insurance has never been explicitly prohibited by law to date; it is a policy tacitly approved and widely implemented in practice since social insurance pooling began. Over the past twenty-plus years, many front-line staff members of government agencies and public institutions—including your human resources and social security department—did not actually work at labor dispatch units, yet labor dispatch units paid their remuneration and social insurance on their behalf. You cannot apply double standards to others and yourselves.” They replied, “Labor dispatch has a basis in law.” After further investigating the laws, regulations, rules, and the history and current situation of government agencies and public institutions using labor dispatch workers, the plaintiff discovered that this attempts to use a “lawful” form to actually exceed legal provisions, concealing the identity-based occupational discrimination caused by the dual-track system inside and outside formal staff quotas, which is an act in serious violation of the “equal pay for equal work” requirement under the Labor Law and Labor Contract Law. Speaking of exceeding the scope of labor usage authorized by law, Article 2 of the Interim Provisions on Labor Dispatch explicitly provides: “Where labor dispatch units engage in labor dispatch operations, and enterprises (hereinafter referred to as labor-using units) use dispatched workers, these Provisions apply. Where partnership organizations such as law accounting firms and law firms formed in accordance with law, foundations, and private non-enterprise units use dispatched workers, execution shall follow these Provisions”—it does not list government agencies or public institutions as labor-using units using dispatched workers. Furthermore, in recent years, relevant national departments have explicitly prohibited this in corrective and improvement measures, for example: Article 10 of Ministry of Finance Order No. 102, Measures for the Administration of Government Procurement of Services: “The following items shall not be included in the scope of government procurement of services: … recruitment and employment of personnel by purchasing entities, use of labor through labor dispatch, and creation of public service positions.” The plaintiff holds that Defendant 1 uses its power to exclude the plaintiff’s social insurance rights through “prohibiting what is not explicitly prohibited” by labeling “not included in law” as “non-compliant,” while abusing power where “unauthorized by law” regarding its own extensive use of labor dispatch workers. Defendant 1’s practice not only openly violates the basic requirement of a rule-of-law society that “citizens are free to do anything not prohibited by law, while government power cannot act without authorization by law,” but also becomes another typical case akin to “allowing the magistrate to burn down houses while forbidding the common folk from lighting lamps.”
The applicant holds that he has reached the statutory age to enjoy retirement eligibility and benefits. Apart from the aforementioned actual contribution years and the principle of protection of legitimate expectations regarding government conduct, no existing legal clause explicitly stipulates that serving prisoners may not participate in social insurance (including social insurance contributions). In the criminal judgments of the applicant’s two sentences, deprivation of personal freedom and political rights for a certain period were sentenced, but deprivation of socio-economic rights—which naturally includes the right to enjoy social insurance—was never sentenced.
In summary, given that the plaintiff’s actual social insurance contribution of 24 years and 4 months has exceeded the stipulated minimum contribution standard of 15 years, and given that regardless of the Notice Letter and Notice of Transaction Matters issued by Defendant 1 or the Review Decision made by Defendant 2, both have ignored the following facts and legal effects that a government under the rule of law and its organs cannot overlook in administration:
(I) When the plaintiff himself, employing enterprises, or family members paid or retroactively paid social insurance fees in the past, they were never informed that payments could not be made during imprisonment. Prior to the Government Information Disclosure Application submitted during the confirmation of the plaintiff’s retirement eligibility in this case, Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358 Reply Letter (This Document Disclosed Upon Application) was never made public, and cannot serve as a basis for the government to renege on its agreement against an uninformed counterparty, thereby severely damaging the principle of protecting legitimate expectations in government conduct;
(II) In interpreting and applying the “scope” of legal application, the defendants apply double standards to themselves and others. Regarding their own recruitment and use of personnel, they openly and extensively use labor dispatch workers where “not contained in law,” severely violating the legal requirement of equal pay for equal work; yet regarding the plaintiff’s social insurance rights, they exclude them on the grounds of “not contained in law” as alleged “non-compliance.” This act of “allowing the magistrate to burn down houses while forbidding the common folk from lighting lamps” violates the basic requirement of a rule-of-law society that “government conduct cannot act without authorization by law, while popular conduct is free where not prohibited by law”;
(III) 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 effect under the Legislation Law of the People’s Republic of China contain no mandatory clauses explicitly excluding social insurance participants during imprisonment.
Regarding the three reasons raised by the plaintiff above around the core dispute, if the two defendants in the specific administrative act of this case are unable to answer (whether by acknowledging or lawfully refuting), it indicates that the defendants’ administrative breach of trust in this case cannot withstand careful legal scrutiny; if they disdain to answer, it incurs suspicion of the reckless arrogance of power—a major taboo in building a rule-of-law society and establishing a rule-of-law government—which should be all the more stopped and guarded against.
To this end, the plaintiff hereby files this administrative lawsuit, requesting your Court to try this case in accordance with law, support the plaintiff’s litigation requests, revoke the Notice of Transaction Matters made against the plaintiff by Defendant 1 on December 25, 2025, and the Administrative Review Decision of the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67 made by Defendant 2, and compel Defendant 1 to promptly process the plaintiff’s retirement eligibility and fulfill the social insurance responsibilities owed to the plaintiff based on the 24-year and 4-month contribution period.
Respectfully submitted,
Gongshu District People’s Court of Hangzhou City
Plaintiff: Chen Shuqing
July 22, 2026 (Revised Draft)
Enclosures:
1. 2 copies of this Complaint;
2. 1 copy of plaintiff Chen Shuqing’s ID card (including front and back sides);
3. 1 copy of Proof of Participation in Pension Insurance Over the Years;
4. 1 photocopy of Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center Notice of Transaction Matters;
5. 1 copy of the Notice Letter stamped with the seal of “Hangzhou Gongshu District Social Insurance Management Service Center”;
6. 1 photocopy of Zhe Ren She Han [2010] No. 358;
7. 1 copy of Administrative Review Decision of the Hangzhou Gongshu District People’s Government Hang Gong Zheng Fu [2026] No. 67.
Editor: Li Jing | Proofreader: Wang Bin | Translator: Shen Meihua
