1. As to whether Jammu and Kashmir Fund Organisation is amenable to the jurisdiction of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1998 is a short question posed in this petition. Facts in brief are as under: 2. Respondent B.N. Dhar was Government employee with J&K State. He has since retired. He submits that he made contribution towards State Life Insurance Fund and was entitled to amount payable under the said policy. As there was failure to pay the amount proceedings which were initiated under the Consumer Act referred to above. Operative part of the order passed by the Divisional Forum is as under: That non applicants particularly Director Funds Organisation J&K Srinagar is directed to make the payment of State Insurance Policy to the complainant within 6 weeks from today alongwith the benefits. The policy has matured in 1993 and the complainant has been deprived of the fruits of the policy without justification. Accordingly we further order that on the amount of maturity value of S.L.I, including all due benefits the non applicants shall pay interest @ 12% which shall accrue from 8/93 till the realisation. The non applicants are directed to comply with the order within 6 weeks from the date of order. File be consigned to records after due completion.� 3. An appeal was preferred. This was dismissed on the ground that this was barred by limitation. As no affidavit was filed alongwith application seeking condonation of delay, the delay was not condoned. Present petition has now been filed in this court. Mr. P.N. Goja has put in appearance on behalf of respondents. Matter being purely legal, arguments were heard. 4. Short question which arises for determination in this case is as to whether provision of J&K Consumer Protection Act would be attracted to the fact of this case or not. Division Bench of this court in CIMA No: 78/98 has expressed an opinion that these provisions would not be attracted. What was said by the Division Bench of this court in CIMA No. 78/98 decided on 29-01-1999, is being quoted below: So far as the question of maintainability of such service cases before the Consumer Fora are concerned, the question has been decided by the Apex Court in JT 1996 (4) SC 288 State of Orissa Vs. What was said by the Division Bench of this court in CIMA No. 78/98 decided on 29-01-1999, is being quoted below: So far as the question of maintainability of such service cases before the Consumer Fora are concerned, the question has been decided by the Apex Court in JT 1996 (4) SC 288 State of Orissa Vs. Divisional Manager LIC and another and also by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal in Appeal No. 64 of 1993 titled Accountant General {Accounts & Entitlement)-II Madya Pradesh Vs. District Consumer Forum Schore and others and by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi in Revision Petition No. 125 of 1995 decided on December 05, 1995 (Sukhvir Singh Vs. The Superintending Engineer I&P (WR). There is substance in the submissions of Mr. Subash Bhat. Since the question stands decided by the Apex Court, there is no dispute so far as the maintainability of such cases before the Consumer Fora is concerned. Under service conditions of employee, services by the respondents are rendered free of charge and therefore, infraction or delay in rendering the same is not actionable against the defaulters particularly the Consumer Forums. This petition is therefore, non maintainable.� The aforementioned decision of the Division Bench of this Court is based on the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India. Respondent has placed reliance on an other decision given by the Supreme Court of India in case reported as Regional Provident Fund Commissioner V. Shiv Kumar Joshi 1999 AIR SCW 4456 wherein account holder with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was held to be covered by the Consumer Protection Laws. View expressed in the earlier decision was taken note of and distinction was sought to be made between service rendered free of charge and service rendered on Commercial basis. This case is however squarely covered by the ratio of the decision given by the Division Bench in CIMA 78 of 1998. In view of the above view taken by the Division Bench of this Court this petition is allowed. Petitioner™s organisation is held to be not covered by the Consumer Protection Act. Orders passed by the Divisional Forum and State Commission are set aside.