S.K. Naik, Member:- Pe­titioner (a school teacher) was an em­ployee of the Education Department in the Government of Haryana. He retired on 31st of December, 1994. Alleging that he was not paid the total amount accumu­lated in his General Provident Fund ac­count, he approached the District Con­sumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hisar (District Forum for short) by filing a con­sumer complaint. 2. The District Forum vide its order dated 3rd of September, 2002, after hear­ing the arguments of the parties and on perusal of the material on record, allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay the claimed amount of Rs.14,401/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of retirement till realization. It also awarded Rs.2000/- as compensation on account of ment?.' agony and harassment and a cost of Rs.1100/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, opposite party no.3, the Account­ant General, Haryana filed an appeal before the Haryana State Consumer Dis­putes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (State Commission for short), who vide its order dated 1st of May, 2009, which is under challenge before us, accepted the appeal and set aside the order of District Forum holding that the petitioner-com­plainant was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and consequently dismissed the complaint. 4. Having lost the relief which the pe­titioner-complainant had succeeded in ob­taining from the District Forum that he has filed this revision petition to challenge the order of the State Commission before us. 5. On 25th of March, 2010 in the presence of the learned counsel for the re­spondent this revision petition was ordered to be posted for final hearing on 18th of May, 2010. However, neither the coun­sel nor anyone appeared on behalf of the respondent on the 18th May, 2010, the complainant was heard and record of the case perused. 6. Mr. Om Prakash Sethi, the peti­tioner-complainant, has submitted that he was very much a consumer since he has suffered at the hands of the respondent, who has failed to pay him his total amount in his General Provident Fund account. He contends that 'GPF is a service and employee is a customer' ac­cording to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. He contends that 'GPF is a service and employee is a customer' ac­cording to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi [2000 AIR 331]: he argues that the State Commission has totally failed to follow the judgment of the Su­preme Court in holding that he was not a consumer. He has further referred to a press clipping in the 'Amar Ujala', Chandigarh edition dated 18th of Decem­ber, 1999, in which he claims that the Supreme Court has given a historical judg­ment with regard to provident fund of an employee falling within the domain of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 7. We patiently heard the arguments advanced by the petitioner-complainant. The reference to the judgment of the Apex Court relate to members of the Employ­ees Provident Fund Scheme under the Em-ployees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which has been enacted to provide for the institution of provident fund, pension and deposit linked insurance funds for employees working in factories and other establishment. It is to be noted that under this Act, a Provident Fund Commissioner is appointed to ad­minister the scheme and towards the ad­ministrative expenses of its establishment, the employer/employees deposit a certain percentage of their contribution. In the case of the present complainant, he is a government employee and he does not fall under the Employees Provident Fund scheme, which was under consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case relied upon supra. The reliance by the petitioner-complainant on the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, therefore, is totally misplaced. The Accountant Gen­eral in contrast does not receive any con­sideration from the employer/employee and discharges statutory functions under the Constitution of India. 8. A four Bench of this Commission in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. Vs. Shivkant ShankarNaik, I (2003) CPJ276 (NC) had the occasion to consider the question as to whether the Comptroller and Auditor General of India and the Accountant General of the States are rendering any service to Government employees under the provision of the Provident Fund Act., 1925 and the Rules framed there under. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commis­sioner Vs. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commis­sioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, III (1999) CPJ 36 (SC) (supra) had been advanced as a plea, but the Bench after considera­tion of the facts therein had distinguished the same and relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Div. Manager, L/C and Am. (1996) 8 SCC 655 held as under :- "We hold that dispute raised by the complainants/respondents is not 'con­sumer dispute' and they are not 'con­sumers' and Accountant Generals are not running any service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It may also be noticed that the State Government in the exercise of its power has jurisdiction to give instructions not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the Statu­tory Rules on that subject. We, there­fore, allow all these revision petitions and set aside the orders of the Dis­trict Forums and the State Commis­sions and dismiss the complaints. There shall be no order as to costs." 9. The dispute in the present case also pertains to the payment of the Provident Fund. Respectfully following the view held by a larger Bench of this Commission in this case of Comptroller and Auditor General of India and Anr. Vs. Shivkant ShankarNaik, (supra), we cannot but hold that the revision petition has to be dis­missed and we order accordingly, however, with no cost.