ORDER (Per : Justice Irshad Hussain, President): Complainant Sh. Jodh Singh Bartwal, on attaining age of superannuation, was retired from the services on 31.05.1992 from the office of District Magistrate, Chamoli. He had been paid 90% of the amount of provident fund subscription, as is the practice and remaining 10% of the amount was to be paid after conciliation of the deposits, withdrawals etc. from the provident fund account of the complainant. Despite a long wait, the remaining amount of the fund was not paid, whereby the consumer complaint No. 143/1993 was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service. 2. Complaint was contested mainly on the ground that sum of Rs. 1,164/- had been paid in excess to the complainant and that the complainant was not entitled to any further amount from his fund. According to the appellant, the complainant was duty bound to deposit the excess amount paid to him due to miscalculation at the time of payment of 90% of the amount of the provident fund. 3. The District Forum, Chamoli (Gopeshwar) by order dated 13.09.1994, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the remaining amount of the provident fund of the complainant together with interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of the retirement of the complainant till payment. Aggrieved by the order, appeal was filed by the District Magistrate, Chamoli. 4. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the same is admitted for decision on merit. 5. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 – complainant, we are of the view that the District Forum was not legally justified in admitting the consumer complaint and deciding it on merit in favour of the complainant, for the simple reason that dispute relating to government provident fund lie outside the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a, since an employee subscribing to government provident fund, is not a “consumer” within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The authority on this point is the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Shiv Kumar Joshi; III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC) = (2002) 1 SCC 998 and decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Controller and Auditor General of India v. Shiv Kant Shankar Nair; I (2003) CPJ 276 (NC) and in the case of Smt. Sheela Mukherjee v. Kashi Vidhyapeeth and others; IV (2003) CPJ 136 (NC). 6. In view of above, the order impugned dated 13.09.1994 can not legally be maintained and the same is liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed accordingly. 7. Appeal is allowed. Order dated 13.09.1994 of the District Forum is set aside. The consumer complaint No. 143/1993 is dismissed. No order as to cost. Complainant may if he so chooses, take such legal course, as is available under law, to have his grievance redressed and may then seek exclusion of the time bonafidely taken in the above proceedings under the provision of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute; (1995) 3 SCC 583.