Worried about a bleak old age, some might consider taking out a "double insurance" policy? The result: no extra pension and ultimately, a self-inflicted loss. Can one really pay more to get more? Yang Xiaoli (a pseudonym), a former employee of an elementary school, began receiving civil service pension benefits from N County in July 2005. From October 2009 to December 2024, Yang Xiaoli paid into the basic enterprise employee pension insurance scheme as a flexible就业人员 at the A City Social Insurance Administration Center (hereinafter referred to as the A City Center). On December 2, 2024, Yang Xiaoli applied to the A City Center for the basic pension entitled to enterprise insurance participants. The A City Center accepted the application on the same day but, upon discovering Yang Xiaoli did not meet the eligibility criteria, issued a "Notice of Refusal to Process Business" on December 3, 2024, terminating her application. Subsequently, the A City Center refunded Yang Xiaoli the amount stored in her enterprise employee basic pension insurance individual account, totaling 56,394.77 yuan. After receiving the refund, Yang Xiaoli submitted a "Full Premium Refund Application" to the A City Center, requesting a full refund of the 84,952.16 yuan she had paid as a flexible就业人员 into the enterprise employee basic pension insurance. The A City Center issued a "Notice Regarding the Application for a Full Social Insurance Premium Refund" to Yang Xiaoli, stating that her request for a full refund did not comply with policy regulations and would not be processed.
Yang Xiaoli, dissatisfied with this notice, filed a lawsuit with the Nanning Railway Transport Court of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region. She argued that the pension she received as a retired civil servant was fully funded by government finances, and therefore her personal payments into the enterprise employee basic pension insurance did not constitute a case of duplicate premium payment, nor did it establish multiple pension insurance relationships. Furthermore, all the pension insurance premiums were paid personally by her, with no employer contribution involved. Yang Xiaoli had paid pension insurance premiums to the A City Social Insurance Bureau for a continuous period of 15 years and 3 months. She contended that the A City Center failed in its legal duty to review and inform her, continuing to collect premiums from an ineligible participant like herself, and should therefore bear the responsibility for restitution.
The court ruled that one cannot simultaneously enjoy dual social pension benefits, dismissing the plaintiff's claims. After hearing the case, the court of first instance determined that the A City Center's notice of refusal to process was in accordance with the law and supported it, ruling to dismiss Yang Xiaoli's lawsuit. Yang Xiaoli, dissatisfied with the verdict, filed an appeal. The Nanning Railway Transport Intermediate Court held that, according to Article 12, Paragraph 3 of the Social Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China, flexible就业人员 participating in basic pension insurance must pay basic pension insurance premiums as stipulated by the state, which are recorded into the basic pension insurance pooled fund and the individual account respectively. Since Yang Xiaoli was already receiving civil service institution pension benefits, she did not meet the conditions for receiving enterprise employee pension insurance benefits. Regarding the basic pension insurance premiums paid into the pooled fund, whether paid by an employer or an individual, there are no regulations stipulating their refundability. The A City Center's termination of Yang Xiaoli's enterprise employee basic pension insurance relationship and refund of her individual account balance was appropriate. When Yang Xiaoli was paying premiums, the A City Center, due to geographical separation, objectively lacked the means to conduct systematic screenings; therefore, the A City Center was not deficient in its review and notification duties, nor did it engage in continuous wrongful collection. Furthermore, no law explicitly mandates such notification. Yang Xiaoli's grounds for appeal were deemed untenable and were not supported. Consequently, the second-instance court ruled to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.
The judge cautions: Do not attempt to enroll in pension schemes in different locations. Pension insurance is a social insurance system combining mandatory and voluntary participation, with the core purpose of guaranteeing basic livelihood in old age. It embodies both welfare and mutual aid characteristics, providing a stable economic source for workers after retirement through intergenerational solidarity and fund accumulation. Both civil service institution pension benefits and enterprise employee basic pension benefits fall within the scope of social pension insurance, offering保障性和福利性 (security and welfare benefits) that cannot be enjoyed重复 (repeatedly). According to national pension insurance policy, even if an individual has two separate insurance records, upon reaching the legal retirement age, they can only choose one scheme from which to receive benefits. Participants should abide by relevant laws and regulations and truthfully declare their insurance information. One must not exploit the current limitations in cross-regional system coverage to enroll重复 in different locations in an attempt to receive two pension payments. Premiums allocated to the basic pension insurance pooled fund, regardless of whether paid by an employer or an individual, are generally not directly refundable. The notion of so-called "double insurance" is unattainable and will ultimately lead to unmet expectations.
Comments