A recent case published by the Nanning Railway Transport Intermediate Court involves a woman, Yang Xiaoli (pseudonym), who attempted to receive two separate pensions. Yang, a former employee of a primary school, began receiving a government institution pension from N County in July 2005. From October 2009 to December 2024, she also paid into the basic enterprise employee pension scheme as a flexible employment worker in City A.

In December 2024, when Yang applied for the enterprise employee pension, the City A Social Security Center reviewed her case and determined she was ineligible. The center issued a notice refusing her application, terminated the related procedures, and refunded the balance of her personal account, which amounted to 56,394.77 yuan. Yang subsequently requested a full refund of the 84,952.16 yuan in premiums she had paid over more than 15 years. The social security center declined this request, stating it was not in line with policy.

Yang filed a lawsuit with the Nanning Railway Transport Court, arguing that her original pension was fully funded by government finances and that her personal contributions to the enterprise pension did not constitute double enrollment. She also claimed the social security center was at fault for failing to review and notify her of the issue over a long period and should therefore provide a full refund. The court of first instance rejected her claims.

Upon appeal, the Nanning Railway Transport Intermediate Court ruled that Yang, already receiving a government institution pension, was not eligible for an enterprise employee pension. The court noted that contributions from flexible employment workers are allocated to both a pooled fund and a personal account, and the portion entering the pooled fund has no legal provision for refunds. The refund of the personal account portion was deemed appropriate. The court also found that due to regional and system limitations, the social security center could not have proactively screened for this situation and thus had no obligation to audit or notify her in advance. The second-instance court ultimately dismissed the appeal and upheld the original verdict.