Retired Zhuozhou, Hebei, employee Jia Fengxian recently prevails in case over “clawback” of pension payments: Zhuozhou court rules lawsuit by Zhuozhou Social Insurance Affairs Center unfounded and dismisses it

(Rights Defense Network Information Center report) On July 15, 2026, this website reported, citing a July 14, 2026, report by Minghui.org: Jia Fengxian, a retired employee in Zhuozhou City, Hebei Province, recently prevailed in a case over the “clawback” of her pension payments. The Zhuozhou court ruled that the Zhuozhou Social Insurance Affairs Center and Jia Fengxian are not equal civil subjects, that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was unfounded, and dismissed it. To date, the Social Insurance Affairs Center has not filed an appeal. The case involves the withholding of pension payments and the seizure of property, among other issues, and has attracted public attention.

Case background

Jia Fengxian, female, 62, is a retired employee of the Landscaping Division of the Zhuozhou Comprehensive Law Enforcement Bureau. On June 20, 2016, she was abducted and framed by police for telling people about the truth of Falun Gong; on September 6, 2019, she was illegally sentenced to seven months in prison.

In February 2026, the Zhuozhou Social Insurance Affairs Center, citing the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security document [2012] No. 69, withheld her pension on the grounds of this purported “prison term” and demanded that she return a total of 480,000 yuan in pension payments she had already received.

Social Insurance Affairs Center seeks repayment of pension payments and files lawsuit

On the morning of May 21, 2026, Jia Fengxian received a “Decision Ordering the Return of Excessively Received Social Insurance Benefits.” That afternoon, she received a court summons notifying her that a hearing would be held on June 9 in the civil lawsuit for “unjust enrichment” filed by the Social Insurance Affairs Center.

During the hearing, the lawyer representing the Social Insurance Affairs Center revealed that the commercial property registered in Jia Fengxian’s name had been sealed in May under the pretext of “property preservation.” The judge asked the legal representative of the Social Insurance Affairs Center whether it was willing to mediate, and the other side explicitly replied, “No need.”

Court rules: plaintiff lacks proper standing

On June 25, 2026, the Zhuozhou court notified Jia Fengxian that she had prevailed in the case concerning the withholding of her pension payments. The court ruled that the Zhuozhou Social Insurance Affairs Center and Jia Fengxian are not equal civil subjects, that the plaintiff’s lawsuit did not comply with legal provisions, and dismissed it.

As of now, Jia Fengxian has not received any information on whether the Social Insurance Affairs Center will appeal.

Pension payments are citizens’ private property and are protected by law

The law clearly stipulates that pension payments are citizens’ lawful property, the product of workers’ diligent labor throughout their lives, and that social insurance institutions are responsible only for managing them on their behalf and distributing them monthly.

Relevant legal provisions include:

　　o Article 44 of the Constitution: The lives of retired persons are ensured by the state and society.

　　o Article 73 of the Labor Law: Workers shall enjoy social insurance benefits in accordance with the law upon retirement.

　　o Article 16 of the Social Insurance Law: Individuals who have paid contributions for 15 years and reached the statutory retirement age shall receive basic pension payments monthly.

　　o Article 34 of the Law on the Protection of the Rights and Interests of Senior Citizens: Pension payments must be made on time and in full and may not be deducted, delayed, or misappropriated.

Point of dispute: Can undisclosed documents serve as a basis for law enforcement?

The Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security document [2012] No. 69 cited by the Zhuozhou Social Insurance Affairs Center not only conflicts with the Social Insurance Law; its final page also clearly states, “This document is not to be disclosed.” Under the basic principles of administrative law, undisclosed documents cannot serve as a basis for administrative law enforcement.

In addition, the document applies to persons who retired before 2014, were paid with public funds, and were involved in the problem of “drawing pay without working”; it has no connection with citizens who made regular contributions and retired in accordance with the law.

Legal professionals point out: Allowing outdated or even unlawful internal documents to override current laws constitutes a serious violation of the law.

Conclusion

The Jia Fengxian case highlights unlawful practices by social insurance departments in some areas in the administration of pension payments, and also reflects the disorder caused by replacing laws with “internal documents.” Whether the case will subsequently enter the appellate process remains to be seen.