Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Impugning legality, validity and correctness of order passed by learned Single Judge declining to grant interim order/refusing to stay the effect and operation of order of termination dated 16.06.2016, this writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants/writ petitioners under Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 [hereinafter called as "the Act, 2006"].

2. The office has raised an objection that as per proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act, 2006, writ appeal against the interlocutory order is barred therefore the writ appeal is not maintainable and to adjudicate that office objection, the matter has been placed before us.

3. Mrs. Meena Shastri, learned counsel for the appellants, would submits that since the learned Single Judge has rejected the appellant's application for interim relief i.e. to stay the effect and operation of order of termination by impugned order, that vitally affects petitioner's right and even otherwise, the impugned order has a bearing on the final adjudication of the case, therefore the order impugned is not an interlocutory order and as such, appeal would lie under Section 2(1) of the Act, 2006, therefore the office objection deserves to be overruled and relied upon the decision of a Full Bench rendered by this Court in the matter of Ajay Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and others AIR 2017 Chh 45.

4. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, would however submit that the impugned order is virtually an interlocutory order and cannot by any stretch of imagination said to be the final order, therefore the writ appeal is not maintainable being barred by the proviso to Section 2 (1) of the Act, 2006, as such, the office objection deserves to be accepted, and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. Section 2(1) of the Act, 2006 provides as under:-

"2. Appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court from a Judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in exercise of original jurisdiction.- (1) An appeal shall lie from a judgment or order passed by one Judge of the High Court in exercise of original Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to a Division Bench comprising of two Judges of same High Court:

Provided that no such appeal shall lied against an interlocutory order or against an order passed in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India."

7. Thus, proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act, 2006 expressly bars writ appeal. The scope and ambit of writ appeal particularly, against the interlocutory order came to be considered before the Full Bench of this Court in Ajay Gupta (supra).

8. Therefore, it would be appropriate to notice the judgment rendered in Ajay Gupta (supra) by the Full Bench. The Full Bench while dealing with the maintainability of writ appeal against the interlocutory order, held as under:-

"We therefore answer the question referred to us by holding that proviso to Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 bars appeals against those interim orders which are totally interlocutory in nature, do not decide matters of moment and do not have an element of finality attached to them. Conversely, if the order vitally affects rights of the parties having bearing on the final adjudication of the case, then even though the order is interim, it cannot be termed as interlocutory order and an appeal would lie. An appeal would also lie against those orders which cannot be undone at the time of final hearing and which have an element of finality attached to them. The orders, effect of cannot be termed to be interlocutory orders and in such eventuality, an appeal would lie against such orders."

9. Thus, the proviso to Section 2(1) of the Act, 2006 bars writ appeal against the interlocutory order. The Full Bench has also held that writ appeal against those interim orde